Does matter have contingency/potentiality?
After contemplating Aristotle's assertion that objects are divisible only "potentially", I now think I know how I would describe matter. Matter is a term for substance itself and instances of them are substance in full act. I don't think potentiality is a property of things. I can paint a car because it's actuality allows it to be changed (that is, it's contingent). But just as an object has all it's sections and parts composing it and not just potentially, matter can be seen as substance and substance likewise means to be extended. This seems to rule out ascribing potentiality and it's identical twin contingency from having philosophical roles the way Aristotle wanted to. A thing can change because it's substance holds it up. Because it can change does not mean something else is holding it up into existence. All this means is that the world of matter is the center of reality and others ways of thinking at the world are mystical. The relationship of mysticism to philosophy is a subject for another thread
Comments (56)
Potentiality and contingency are 1) not different 2) not properties of matter
Seems like you are taking a subject that is clearly about physics and trying to make it somehow about metaphysics, i.e. ontology. I think that's a futile undertaking.
Aristotle contrasted Potential with Actual. Both terms refer to metaphysical states, not to physical properties. Potential refers to a possible future state that has not yet been actualized in the Now. For example, "Ice" is a potential state of "Water", which does have slightly different physical properties. However, Potential can also refer to something that is not-yet-existent -- hence, no properties -- but is not impossible. So the phase change from Potential to Actual is indeed contingent on some Causal or Creative Agency (e.g. Energy or Creator). In that sense, Aristotle would say that everything in the world is contingent on a "First Cause" (or Creative Act) with the Potential for actualizing a world from scratch.
However, to conclude from the Contingency of Reality that constantly changing "matter is the center of reality" is a personal perspective, not a logical conclusion. For example, Heraclitus claimed that "Life" is the central reality. And yet, the essence of Life is Change (impermanence ; contingency). And for many of us, "Awareness-Consciousness-Mind" is the center of their reality. From that post-Copernican relativity, Self is the center around which all contingent things revolve. Which raises the question : is "Self" material or mystical, or merely metaphysical (mental)? So, what is the Lodestar around which every evolving thing revolves? :cool:
PS___ the matter of which Earth is composed may be the physical center of the Moon's orbit, but what is the meta-physical (philosophical ; mystical?) center of your personal world?
PPS___I assume you were thinking of "Matter" as the Touchstone (standard reference) of Physics, as opposed to "Spirit" as the heart of Meta-Physics (Philosophy ; Mysticism??). But, I went off in a different direction. Sorry! :yikes:
What is the essence of reality according to Heraclitus? :
His central claim is summed up in the phrase Panta Rhei ("life is flux") recognizing the essential, underlying essence of life as change. Nothing in life is permanent, nor can it be, because the very nature of existence is change. Change is not just a part of life in Heraclitus' view, it is life itself.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Heraclitus_of_Ephesos/
Does it matter if matter does?
Matter is what matter does.
Aside: It is possible to make everyone happy!
True. "To exist" literally refers to objective things . . . except when we use the term metaphorically in reference to subjective concepts --- such as the notion of Change. We can't see or touch the difference between a Now State and a Future State. But by reasoning, we can infer that the physical state of a thing has mutated over a time interval. Change is not a static thing, but a dynamic process of evolution & transformation. Yet, "to change" is a verb, while "Change" is a noun; treated as-if it's a static thing : a blurry snap-shot of motion.
Since subjective ideas (known by conception) are difficult to communicate from mind to mind, we typically compare them to objective things (known by perception). Which is why philosophers use a lot of metaphorical language, and scientists prefer to use more concrete terminology. Ironically, Quantum Physics is so Alice-in-wonderland-weird, that even sober scientists tend to sound like mystics or poets (e.g. Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli). Anything meta-physical has no existence in a real physical sense. But everything Menta-Physical (mental concepts) does exist in an ideal metaphysical sense. That's why physicists study Physics (matter ; energy), and philosophers study Meta-Physics (mind ; ideas). :cool:
What type of word is 'change'? :
Change can be a noun or a verb
https://wordtype.org/of/change
Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred to as quantum quackery, 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. ___Wikipedia
Subjective ideas are hard to communicate. I'm not saying change doesn't happen but that it is not an object. Heidegger speaks in his book on Metaphysics about nothing nihlating itself. I assume by nothing he means potentiality. The idea of potentiality was talked of as prime matter or contingency (although forms were contingent too in another way) by old philosophers. What seems correct to me thougj is that this chair, this bowl, this spoon is a coherent piece of actualization and that it is fully itself. At a specific time it becomes something else and might be something else every second. But I don't see were potentiality comes in. It's like saying change is an object
Isn't "energy" material in principle?
It depends on how you define matter. For me, usually, matter is everything from the hydrogen atom up: things that are constructed. There is an expression "material particle" but this only means it is a constituent of a material object, it does not mean it is a material thing. If everything is matter nothing is, if you get my drift...
Well quantum physicists don't really know what subatomic particles are but only what they do. Imo
Potential is not objective. It's a subjective idea (qualia) used to describe why objective things change : "because X caused potential to become actual". Anything that lacks the potential for change (a cause) would be eternally the same. But in the real world, everything is subject to change, even metaphysical Minds. For example, an electrical circuit is described as possessing the quality of Potential, as-if it is a complete loop. If the circuit is broken though, the Potential is only theoretical (pending the closing of a switch). We say a battery has Voltage (potential energy) even when it's not part of a circuit. But we're only speaking hypothetically. We say that an inert concrete block has potential energy if it is six feet off the ground. But only when it is allowed to fall (the cause), does that potential (static, stored energy) convert into actual (changing, kinetic) energy --- which converts to metaphysical Pain in your toe.
So your problem with treating Potential as a real thing is due to the flexibility of language, which allows us to use Metaphors (or future tense) as-if they are the thing (or state) implied. And philosophers are some of the worst offenders for getting Potential & Actual confused. On this forum we waste a lot of time trying to untangle our metaphors. :worry:
PS__"It's like" (like "as-if") is potentially confusing metaphorical language. That's why philosophers must eventually define what they are really (actually) trying to say. :joke:
PPS__Metaphorical language is also used to describe Mystical concepts, that are invisible to our physical senses. Some people use the term "Soul" (Ghost) as-if it refers to an immaterial essence, that is only loosely connected to a physical body. We can easily imagine such unreal things, by comparing them to familiar material objects. And we can talk about them as-if they are Actual things. Yet, like all subjective notions, we accept or reject such ideas, not on material evidence, but on faith in the story-teller. When physicists tell us about spooky metaphorical energy "Fields", we must use our imagination to see them. They are only Potential until actualized into measurable energy. Some of us find "fields" more believable than "ghosts". :cool:
[quote=WItty, TLP (1921)]1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
[ ... ]
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.[/quote]
An analoguous approximation of the metaphysical to the physical: (contra Aristotlean e.g. "only continuum, no vacuum, geocentric" dogmas) classical atomism ~ RQM; logical atomism ~ information entropy; etc. Definitional questions of "matter" and "energy" are, btw, methodologically vacuous.
To my mind material we sense with our five external senses is prior to any sense in which it can change. Brains, hands, beds are all real tangible things. QM has brought the idea of potential existence back to the forefront but a thing has to be actual in order to be able to change. The potentiality comes from the actuality, not the other way around.
Apparently, you are thinking of "Potential" in the sense of stored energy, instead of Aristotle's Potential as the origin & source of Actual things. If this was a physics forum, that special Palpable usage might be accepted. But, on a philosophy forum, I'd think a more general meaning would be preferred. (Except by 180 proof, who prefers Physics to Philosophy. :cool: )
An example of a material potential is a chemical bomb, which has the Potential to destroy buildings & people. Or an electric battery which has stored energy in chemical form, possessing the Potential to produce a voltage in a complete circuit. That is a common definition of "Potential". But it must be qualified by noting that a 1.5V AA battery in your hand, touching both ends, has no Actual voltage, so you don't get shocked. The voltage is Contingent upon a connection between + & - poles.
Of course, we sometimes refer to stored (inert) energy metaphorically, as-if it was actual flowing causation. But the relevant distinction that Aristotle made is : Potential is not Actual; it does not yet exist; it's Ability Without Achievement . Philosophers, who don't make that differentiation, tend to get their arguments all tangled-up in existential side-tracks. Potential is Possibility, so what are the odds of becoming Reality? And Possibility implies Contingency. So, the answer to the OP question is "yes" : matter does have Potential/Contingency. But that's not a philosophical question.
Humans can call stored energy "Potential" (for causation), only because we are able to imagine a future state, after that inert energy (of chemical form) is converted into causal kinetic energy (of relative position & polarity). That's also why you can say that "potentiality comes from actuality". Because we give a spurious name to that inert energy to signify it's future state, not its current (pun intended) state. :joke:
Voltage and Potential in a battery :
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/661725/voltage-and-potential-in-a-battery
Philosophical Potential :
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential
Physical Potential :
[i]1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
2. the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.[/i]
___Oxford
Potentiality and Actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
I don't see cosmology as going from potential to actual as philosophers like Tim Freke expound, nor from actual to potential in an Aristotelian sense. I think there is what is actual and we sense it and yes we understand it's potentials. But I was trying to show that people go to far with the potency-actuality distinction. They might say "matter has potential so it is below what is non-material because that is completely actual". Such a line of argument is ungrounded but it was used by Aristotle. I don't see what philosophy can say about matter that physics can't
Oh, I see what you are getting at. It's the old Matter/Mind conundrum. And I don't know what I can add to the debates over thousands of years on the topic. But, my point in the previous post was that, if you are talking about Physics, you are not discussing Philosophy. Philosophy is not concerned with what is Actual, Local, or Specific. Instead, it focuses on Abstractions, Universals, & Generalities. And those "non-material" notions are not physical objects to be dissected. So, applying the rules of Physics, Chemistry, or Biology will get you nowhere on "un-grounded", but Foundational, Meta-Physical questions. Philosophy is not in competition with Physics on what to say about matter. But Mind is another "matter". :smile:
Physics and Philosophy :
Physics is concerned with unravelling the complexities of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale. Philosophy deals with foundational questions of the most general kind: what there is, what we know and how we came to know it, and how we ought to act and structure our lives.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/physics-and-philosophy
Universals :
[i]In general, questions surrounding universals touch upon some of the oldest, deepest, and most abstract of philosophical issues. . . .
Realists endorse universals. Conceptualists and Nominalists, on the other hand, refuse to accept universals and deny that they are needed.[/i]
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/
PS__Theoretical Physicists (such as Einstein) are more philosopher than physicist, because they are more concerned with general principles (Relativity), than with specific properties.
Physics and Philosophy :
[i]Philosophy, the physicist Carlo Rovelli has observed, brings to science “conceptual analysis, attention to ambiguity, accuracy of expression, the ability to detect gaps in standard arguments, to devise radically new perspectives, to spot conceptual weak points, and to seek out alternative conceptual explanations”.
Or, as Einstein put it, philosophical thinking makes for the “distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth”.[/i]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/24/einstein-got-it-philosophy-and-science-do-go-hand-in-hand
PPS__Physicists study "Matter", while Philosophers study "Form".
"Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form".
Try to make a water sculpture. You will see the differences with ice are not that slightly. Ice and stone are more alike than ice and water.
Quoting god must be atheist
What matter does is different from what matter is.
Thanks for your thoughts. I've heard some Aristotelians say only form exists, others that only organic things have forms, and others that everything has form and prime matter. Descartes rejected the idea of two principles in things and said extension of substance alone was what objects are. So it gets rather confusing, especially when it gets to Hegel's logic and stuff, which I just finished reading. By what criteria do we say universals, the general, and prime matter, the specific, compose an object and which objects at that? Does a pond of water have one form as it oozes it many crevices? Where does the form come from when a leaf falls from a tree and is now a new unit? And then there is the ship of Theseus. Ideas of metaphysics, ohh they can be thorny..
Ha! Is the ice-water glass half-empty or half-full? What's the difference? :joke:
:roll:
I prefer (anti-supernaturalistic) philosophy grounded in, or consistent with, current physics. Had I been an ancient / classical thinker, I'd have preferred (e.g.) Epicurus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes of Syracuse, Chrysippus of Soli, Sextus Empiricus ... to (the dogmatic tradition of) Plato-Aristotle, Plotinus et al.
Yes. Philosophers have varying opinions on almost everything. That's why we dialog : to see if there is some common ground within the wide range of personal beliefs.
People use the term "Form" with either concrete or abstract meanings, but they may not make it clear which is intended. That word may refer to the physical contours of the matter comprising an object. Or, it may indicate the mathematical pattern of relationships that we infer as, that which is common to a category of things. For example, dogs come in many sizes & shapes but there is some underlying similarity between all of them. So, the essence of "dogginess" is not any particular physical shape or shagginess, but a general pattern of interrelated features that our brains interpret as "dog", and not as "cat". I tend to think of that "essential pattern" as abstract, logical & mathematical instead of concrete, perceptual & physical. By rationally inferring that invisible conceptual commonality within variety, we derive meaning from the complexity of apparent reality.
Again, our use of metaphorical language, in poetry or philosophy, often leads to confusion about the intention. When you say "form", are you referring to what you see (perception), or what you infer (conception)? Is "form" the apparent shape & texture, or the implicit pattern of relationships? Form is the middle-name of In-Form-Ation, which is the meaning in a Mind. Plato merely described the concept of a thing metaphorically, as-if it was a perfect eternal essential pattern floating around out in space. But we don't have to take that notion literally, in order to find general meaning in specific things. :smile:
Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
ESSENCE VERSUS APPEARANCE
I apologize, if my tongue-in-cheek remark offended you. Perhaps, I should have said that you seem to prefer Physics to Metaphysics (anti-physics to you). But to me that's the same thing as Philosophy. Aristotle made a distinction between his scientific studies of Nature (phusis), and his philosophical analysis & commentary on Nature (including non-physical concepts and theories) by placing them in a separate volume. He didn't give them different names though, "metaphysics" was added later. It was all love-of-wisdom to him.
For Ari, physical studies were merely a small part of the pre-scientific endeavor to understand the world. Today, it's all turned around : physics is the dominant field of study, and philosophy is a minor player in the game of knowing what's what. But, TPF is a philosophy forum, insignificant as it is, so IMHO the focus of our discussions should be on the abstract notions in his second volume. However, the fuzzy margins of Physics, especially on the Quantum scale, are invisible to our physical senses, and knowable only with our non-physical sense of Reason. So those abstract concepts, such as Quarks, are fair game for philosophical critique.
Therefore, when we are discussing fringe theories, there is little empirical evidence to place under the magnifying glass. That may be why several of the pioneers of QT were labeled as "mystics". Their theoretical descriptions of sub-reality did not agree with intuition or classical physics. But the math was so predictive, that empirical physicists decided to stop arguing about the real meaning of the theory, and to "just shut-up and calculate". That way, they can avoid the stain of "mysticism" & "metaphysics". But, I'm not a professional mathematical physicist. And I have no reputation to smear with such labels. So, I feel free to explore the spooky borderlands of the physical world, including the immaterial stuff of the Mind.
As far as I can tell. None of my speculations into the non-physical aspects of the world are "inconsistent with current physics". They merely delve into the darkness on the fringes of physical understanding, where even sober scientists begin to sound a bit mystical. And that's partly because such quantum queerness as Entanglement, are more amenable to the Holistic Eastern traditions, than to the Reductive Western approach. Quantum science sounds so counter-intuitive to Western ears because they expected to find Atoms at the bottom of their dissections. But, as pragmatic "calculators", they were forced to imagine invisible "fields" metaphorically, as-if they are real things.
If you don't mind, I'll continue to consult Plato & Aristotle for philosophical insights. But I refer to modern scientists to support my Information Theoretic philosophy, with empirical evidence, and even some non-empirical hypotheses where the evidence is murky. :cool: .
Do quarks really exist? :
Nope, quarks never exist on their own. The reason is that it takes more energy to separate a pair of quarks than the quarks themselves contain.
https://www.quora.com/Do-quarks-exist-not-just-as-a-useful-mathematical-concept-that-helps-explain-physical-behaviour-but-physically-exist
Quantum mysticism :
Appropriation by New Age thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Note -- my Enformationism worldview is Holistic, but not New Age. It's similar in some ways to those of Deepak Chopra, but far different in others.
What did Einstein say about quantum entanglement? :
Albert Einstein colorfully dismissed quantum entanglement—the ability of separated objects to share a condition or state—as “spooky action at a distance.” Over the past few decades, however, physicists have demonstrated the reality of spooky action over ever greater distances—even from Earth to a satellite in space.
Note -- Albert was right that parted paired particles is "spooky", in the sense of counter-intuitive. But, he was wrong in dismissing it as "mystical", just because it didn't fit his reductive paradigm. The long-distance relationship is real, but not reductive. It's merely Holistic, as in Systems Theory.
Meta-physics :
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary
PICTURE OF IMAGINARY QUANTUM FIELD
PICTURE OF REAL PHYSICAL FIELD
No need to apologize since you gave no offense. I simply corrected your erroneous impression and clarified my actual preferences. Btw, I no more conceive of metaphysics as "anti-physics" than I conceive of fruit as anti-apples. One reflects on fruit and one eats apples; thus, I understand metaphysics to be a second (or higher) order categorical, noncognitive, discourse (re: conceptual interpretations) and physics to be a first order hypothetical, cognitive, discourse (re: testable explanatory models). I take issue with instances of you conflating, or equivocating, these separate discourses, Gnomon, which, IME, renders your "Enformationism" mere pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry (i.e. cherry-picked citations from scientific literature that only rationalize and do not corroborate your so-called "theories").
I had to Google "noncognitive discourse". It sounds like "subliminal communication". But I don't know how that would work (mental telepathy?).
The article quoted (or "cherry-picked") below is over my head. But it seems to equate "cognitive" with empirical ("predictive") Science, and "noncognitive" with theoretical (speculative) Philosophy (or metaphysics). So, I infer that you would agree with Richard Feynman's dismissal of Philosophical (or metaphysical) interpretations of Quantum Theory : "Shut up and calculate". And that division of labor is OK with me. You can be a "mathematical physicist" calculating predictive facts, and I'll remain in the "unskilled" camp, as a "theoretical" philosopher, speculating on "non-cognitive" meanings.
The notions I discourse about are primarily non-computable, and hence debatable. That's why philosophers are still debating the same hypothetical questions raised by Plato & Aristotle back in the "dark ages" before predictive reductive Science emerged as the technological foundation of modern civilization. And that's also why I post on a Philosophical forum instead of a Physics forum. I only ask that you grant us unpredictable holistic "cherry-pickers" the right to free speech on this marketplace of ideas. Thanks. :smile:
cognitive versus noncognitive :
Under hermeneutics, ‘the application of such honorific’s as “objective” and “cognitive” is never anything more than an expression of the presence of, or the hope for, agreement among inquirers’ (335). It is not another way of knowing, as understanding rather than explanation, but a way of coping. It enables us to give the notion of “cognitive” to predictive science and to stop worrying about the “noncognitive”
https://philosophymasters.wordpress.com/tag/cognitive-versus-noncognitive/
Attributed to Feynman :
[i]Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics?
Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics.[/i]
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652
I agree that the physical field is real and that our imagery of quantum fields have no relation to what they look like to "God". A real field or meadow IS a quantum field that is not isolated by science. What an isolated atom looks like I have no idea
May I suggest that the imaginary mathematical fields of Physics represent an invisible Ideality underlying Reality. The fields themselves are abstract & ideal, definitions with no actual physical properties, only mathematical values. Yet physicists treat them as-if the models are real --- as-if the map is the terrain. :smile:
PS___Mathematics is itself an abstraction of reality, minus all the physical stuff.
Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary,
Here's a magnified photo of a single atom. How would you describe it in words?
We can't smell, taste, hear, or touch an atom so it's hard to say what it is in itself. We would have to be much smaller ourselves to know.
Ideally or the physical? That question is what philosophy is all about
True. Philosophy is about Ideas, while Physics is about "real" things. The original hypothetical concept of a modern Atom was a miniature solar system. Then it was portrayed as a tiny cloud of electrical potential. Now, that foggy fuzz (virtual particle) is imagined as an empty place in space (abstract field) where electro-magnetic events may or may not happen. But, regardless of the philosophical postulations, scientists continue to manipulate things they can't see, for practical purposes. It's like the concept of Energy, no one knows what it is, but only what it does. Theorists are shooting in the dark, while empiricists are making the darkness jump through hoops. :nerd:
The term “atom” was coined in ancient Greece and gave rise to the school of thought known as “atomism”. However, this theory was more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.
https://www.universetoday.com/38282/electron-cloud-model/
The atom now has been found through experimentation, thru the senses. Empiricism comes in different forms. Most agree that taste is in the tongue and not in the apple. So some will say tasting gives knowledge, and others not. I don't see how reason can prove something external to the universe since we are equipped to understand while within the universe
There are two basic meanings of "to prove" : 1. by evidence or 2. by argument. Scientists prove the existence of invisible physical objects, like neutrinos, by inference from circumstantial evidence, such as wispy trails left behind in a cloud chamber by unseen motes of matter. Philosophers prove the "existence" of metaphysical concepts, like Qualia, by logical syllogisms, derived from observations of behavior, or from intuitive axioms.
We cannot scientifically prove anything "external to the physical universe", such as Metaverses, Parallel Worlds, or a pre-bang magical Inflationary Instant. Those are imaginary or hypothetical, abstract mathematical extrapolations from known characteristics of the sensible aspects of Nature. That's because, unlike animals, humans can imagine things that do not exist in this place & time -- that are not Real, but Ideal. And philosophers, especially, specialize to hypothesize about unseen (hyper-sensory) things that are preter-natural. For example, the Greek theory of minuscule Atoms, was not a scientific observation, but a seemingly logical necessity to explain the physical objects we can see & touch. And intelligent people believed in such unseen things for several thousand years, based on inference, not evidence.
In a similar manner, some ancient & modern philosophers have deduced the logical necessity for a First Cause (or Creator) that exists external to the Effect or Creation. It's simply a matter of mental framing. If you look closely at a billiard table, you will see balls of hard stuff, moving around and interacting, as-if they had a mission. But only if you widen your scope to look external to the table, will you see the original Cause of that seemingly deliberate behavior : a pool shooter, with the intention of moving those balls into pockets without actually touching them.
"Potential" and "Contingency" are concepts, not real here & now things. They are rational inferences from many observations over extended time. All we can say is that such Qualia must exist in some sense, if we are to make sense of the dynamic world around us. Is that proof enough for you . . . as a philosopher? :nerd:
Neutrino :
The neutrino is perhaps the best-named particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics: it is tiny, neutral, and weighs so little that no one has been able to measure its mass. . . . . Theorists predicted the neutrino’s existence in 1930, but it took experimenters 26 years to discover the particle.
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsneutrinos
Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.
To infer : to form an opinion from physical or logical premises
THE WORLD OF BILLIARD BALLS ON A MISSION
THE SPOOKY OFF-WORLD CAUSE OF ENTERPRISING BALLS
You accuse me of "sophistry" whenever I make philosophical arguments instead of providing conventional scientific facts to prove my point. You also portray me as a Mystic, because I talk a lot about Meta-Physics instead of Physics. As I have noted before, if this was a Physics forum, your imputation might have merit. But since we are dialoging on The Philosophy Forum, your assertions miss their mark. And they seem more like "Sophistry" (rhetoric of persuasion focused on winning arguments instead of converging on Truth). So, there. I can lob labels too. But name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:
PS__Are you expecting me to give-up and say "uncle"? Labels & Liables may tar my reputation, but they will never break my "spirit". :wink:
Philosophy vs Sophistry - What's the difference? :
difference between philosophy and sophistry. is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.
https://wikidiff.com/sophistry/philosophy
Instead of a first cause as a substance, I believe in the world as an entity that had a first motion. A first motion results in the next and so on, an eternal free fall of causality
I would add that the universe doesn't have to see for us to see (and have purpose)
As implied in my billiards illustration, the first cause of ball motion was not the cue ball or the stick (material substances), but the aiming & intention of the shooter's mind. The Contingency of the original Cause is the decision to strike or not, and the choice of goal or direction. No strike, no chain of causation, and no balls in the pockets, and no physical world for us to wonder about.
Aristotle defined the First Cause of all actions in the world as the "unmoved mover". In modern terms we define that "Prime Mover" as a mathematical Singularity. Some think of that speck-in-space as a substance, but it would have to compress all the matter of the universe into the equivalent of a Planck Mass. The word "singularity" also implies unity or wholeness : having no parts or divisions. No substance, just Form (design ; plan ; program).
So the Big Bang is what would happen if that infinite Potential, packed into a infinitesimal volume, suddenly exploded like the chain reaction in an atomic bomb. Fortunately for us, the sequence of events following the Bang was not exactly a "free fall", but was governed by Natural Laws, and regulated by Natural Selection. That's what I mean by deciding which direction to aim at.
Since, at the point of Singularity, all physical values go back to infinity or zero, there is no room for matter, or any other kind of substance. Only immaterial Intention, or Aim, or Design could be packed into nothingness, like the immaterial Information of a computer program. :smile:
Singularity :
A point of infinite density and infinitesimal volume, at which space and time become infinitely distorted according to the theory of General Relativity
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/singularity
Note : this is where space & time goes off-the-charts, and disappears from the physicist's radar. In effect, there is no space-time prior to the First Cause. A Bit of Information is not a physical thing, but a mathematical "difference" -- a ratio, a value.
Infinitesimal : an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.
Planck Mass :
The Planck length is the smallest distance. The Planck time is the smallest time. The Planck mass is the geometric mean of all masses in universe.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-Planck-time-Planck-length-and-Planck-mass
The problem is with the word 'divide'. The connections between things are as important as the things themselves and when things are severed apart they lose meaning. This is why reductive science is inadequate and destroys meaning.
You seem to be avoiding saying there is a consciousness that is and has always been on a higher level then humans. Does the intention of the big bang imply this consciousness or our consciousness
While on a train you might feel stationary because of the "atmosphere" of the train walls. My position of empiricism is that we do see things how they are but not completely how they are.
Yes. I have mentioned my understanding of the First Cause as possessing the Potential for all emergent properties of the evolving world, including Consciousness. However, I don't mean that the FC was or is conscious in the same sense as humans. I have no way of knowing about that. But, if our world has the property of Awareness, logically the original Cause must have the power to cause it to emerge at the proper time. An old saying is "there's nothing in the Effect, that was not already in the Cause -- as potential. :smile:
What is Law? : Limitations on action; rules governing creation; embodied Intention; imposed Will.
BothAnd Blog post 14
in the context of Big Bang Theory
Have you heard of the philosopher Tim Freke? He wrote a book about Jesus and gnostic that a lot of people didn't like, but his ideas in the book Soul Story are like yours. His talk with Ken Wilbur was interesting too
No. I was not familiar with Freke. But a quick Google indicates that his specialty is Gnosticism and Christian Mysticism. There are some incidental similarities between Gnosticism and my own worldview. But I don't think of it as Mysticism. There are also coincidental similarities with many of the major religious traditions, including the notion of Panpsychism and Pantheism. But, in my blog I try to make it clear that I am not mimicking any spiritual or mystical or theological beliefs.
My thesis began from two branches of modern Science : Quantum Theory & Information Theory. Both were pointing in the direction of Mind or Consciousness as the underlying essence of the material world as known via our senses. And that just happens to coincide with some ancient guesses about Soul & Spirit. For example, Aristotle's De Anima ( On The Soul) postulated that everything in the world is a composite of FORM (morph ; ousia) and MATTER (hyle), which is now known as Hylemorphism. Ari claimed that those two parts are inseparable aspects of a whole entity. Hence, when the body dies, the soul is extinguished : metaphorically, the pattern evaporates. The structure of the whole system collapses. That's Dualism within Monism.
Aristotle is commonly labeled as a Materialist, in contrast to Plato as an Idealist. But his notion of "Form" is equivalent to the immaterial design or pattern that the rational mind infers from observation of material objects. Those patterns are not visible to the senses, except to the sixth sense of Reason : which is the pattern-seeker, the information-knower, that allows humans discover the invisible laws of Nature. So, my "soul story" goes back beyond Gnosticism to the origins of Formal Philosophy. :nerd:
Note -- Christians who didn't like Freke's Gnosticism will not like my own Enformationism, because it doesn't pay homage to any particular canon of scriptures. Ken Wilbur's writings also bear some similarities to my worldview, but there are also differences.
Structure :
[i]1. the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. to construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to.[/i]
Note -- the essential structure of a thing is its Form, or Pattern or Inter-relations ; its EnFormAtion
De Anima :
His principal work in psychology, De Anima, reflects in different ways his pervasive interest in biological taxonomy and his most sophisticated physical and metaphysical theory. . . . . “the phenomena common to soul and body” . . . .‘Hylomorphism’ is simply a compound word composed of the Greek terms for matter (hulê) and form or shape (morphê); thus one could equally describe Aristotle’s view of body and soul as an instance of his “matter-formism.” That is, when he introduces the soul as the form of the body, which in turn is said to be the matter of the soul,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/
You have a reason for this,?
From my perspective Aristotle didn't believe the world exists. He says the perishable needs some foundation, that Zeno was wrong about motion, and that objects are made of two principles. He seems to have been in his head instead of in reality
That's not how I understand Aristotle. Compared to many modern philosophers, who make long tangled (metaphorical + material) arguments about Reality, or our Conception of it, Ari tended to get down to "brass tacks". To avoid Plato's imaginary eternal ideal "Forms" -- that have a ghostly existence outside of Reality -- Ari placed his conceptual "form" within each physical object. But he still couldn't completely do away with the fact that Form, or Order, or Structure is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. So yes, his "form" was in his head (morph), not in the material thing (hyle).
My interpretation of Hylemorphism (matter + mind) is that Reality is what our physical senses Perceive, and Ideality (the world of ideas) is what our minds Conceive. Objective Percepts are empirically verifiable; but subjective Concepts are always debatable. So, Aristotle reluctantly gave a dual definition of the world. Since the emergence of rational homo sapiens, It's both Real and Ideal, both Concrete and Abstract, both Sensory and Imaginary. :cool:
Concepts are defined as abstract ideas. They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks of the concept behind principles, thoughts and beliefs.
___Wiki
Note -- Abstractions remove the flesh (matter) from the skeleton (structural relationships = form)
PS___I think your inference is correct, that Aristotle couldn't avoid making essentially the same distinction as Plato, between the Real material world, and the Ideal human model of the world. However, he was not denying the Real world, but merely admitting-into-evidence the Ideal concepts by which we communicate about the world. To eliminate Ideality, you would have to eliminate Humanity.
PPS___Quantum theory has pulled the foundational rug out from under Materialism. It has replaced physical Atoms of hard stuff with mathematical Fields of relationships, that can only be Conceived, not Perceived
Objects have infinite divisibility (the "finite" means discrete which means limit of infinite process, hence multiple objects), extension, and palpability. What makes a thing of common nature is not clear. Evolution has no definite definition of what a nature is and it gets harder to define when with objects that are not alive. As a nominalist I define objects by cohesion but there is no metaphysical necessity to this. I don't see the human mind ending by the realization that everything in reality is just a bunch of stuff. It can be a spiritual awakening as well. From materialism I've discovered that although I have identity as a consciousness, my consciousness is nothing. This "anatman" is very contrary to Aristotle who though the souk was the form of the body.
Nominalism gives names to swarms of things that seem to cohere as a whole, but the swarm itself is not real. It's an imaginary singularity, that consists of multiple parts. As Juliet said about family labels : “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. She notes that the nominal label is not real either. A name is no more real than an abstract number (nominal). Ultimately, the metaphysical essence (Soul) of Romeo, was what she loved. The whole singular Self is what was meaningful to her, not the myriad cells that stick together into the shape she identified (labeled) as Romeo. The un-quantifiable Qualia of a rose or lover is not in the nominal protoplasm, but in its menta-physical wholeness. :joke:
Quoting Gregory
True. Materialism cannot see metaphysical mental concepts, so it gives a label to the absence of matter, to represent the meaning of no-thing. However, when we give names to non-things, such as consciousness, we still treat them as-if they are real things. Although, for philosophical purposes, we put warning labels on non-things, to remind us that our "identify" is nothing, hence not important. And yet, we seem to enjoy the sweet smells (Oualia) of the Mind, even though there's nothing there but a lump of raw meat.
So, the ethereal "Mind", by the materialistic name of "Brain", still forms the essence of Self that we identify ourselves with. You don't identify with your slimy Brain, or any other part of your body. Your "Self", is the whole system of Quanta & Qualia which cohere as an identifiable mass of matter, that allows us to locate and identify "Gregory" in the real world. You are not a multiplicity of quantifiable things, but a conceptual qualitative Unity (Soul or Self). :cool:
A soul, Aristotle says, is “the actuality of a body that has life,” where life means the capacity for self-sustenance, growth, and reproduction. If one regards a living substance as a composite of matter and form, then the soul is the form of a natural—or, as Aristotle sometimes says, organic—body.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Philosophy-of-mind
Note -- a Composite is a conceptual whole, not a real thing. Life is not a real thing, but a conceptual label for a biological process.
Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions,
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html
REAL BIRDS
IMAGINARY SWARM or is it a whale?
I do believe that the mind makes concepts of the world and these are needed for morality (imperatives on how we treat people) but nominalism for me is just recognizing that "two rabbits" are rabbits because of similarities between two particulars and there is no thing they are sharing between them. It's just about being honest about the individuality of objects
I was not familiar with Nominalism, beyond the meaning of the Latin (name), so I Googled it. And the first impression I got was : Nominalism means that Philosophy a waste of time. However, the definition below could also be interpreted as merely an attempt to avoid Reification of abstractions. The existential significance of abstract concepts is not in objects themselves but in logical relationships between things. They don't exist "in the same way". The model is not the real thing.
However, the way you expressed it above sounds like : "if you can't put a number on it, it doesn't exist". But that's the whole point of the Qualia versus Quanta and Real versus Ideal debates. In my posts on this forum, I refer both to Empirical material objects and to Theoretical immaterial ideas. But, to confuse one with the other is the Reification Fallacy. I guess you could say that I take a Nominalist or a Realist perspective as appropriate to the context.
To take a hard position on the Quantitative side seems to eliminate much of what philosophy is about : Wisdom, Truth, Ethics, Meaning, and Value. All of those are General Concepts, and None is a nominal thing. So, in order to do philosophy, you'd have to treat them as Symbols or Metaphors or Maps pointing to aspects of Reality that "exist" only in Minds. Even so, we can Name them, if not Number them.
We even give names to abstract numbers as-if they are specific things. Consequently, instead taking a stand on the Individual or Universal bank of the river, I simply try to remember not to confuse "as-if" with "as-is". Because that ambiguity is at the root of many vehement debates about the meanings of our words. Is "being honest" an individual object? :chin:
[i]Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material.
Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.[/i]
https://gohighbrow.com/problem-of-universals-realism-vs-nominalism/
Reism is the doctrine that only things exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reism/
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
Quoting Gregory
A Pattern is not a singular thing, but an array of things with something shared in common. That shared structure is not a physical connection (thing), but a meaningful relationship. Human Reason is a Pattern Recognition function that "sees" the whole -- connects the dots -- in a random collection of parts. AI computers are only beginning to scratch the surface of that talent for dealing with Holistic concepts (groups ; categories) as-if they are nominal things, with which a computer can simulate human reasoning. :nerd:
Pattern recognition is used to give human recognition intelligence to machines that are required in image processing.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/pattern-recognition-introduction/
MEANING IS IN THE INVISIBLE RELATIONSHIPS NOT THE THINGS