Modern Realism: Fieldism not Materialism

The way I see it, what is most fundamental in the universe is not ‘stuff’, but interaction. Particles are a decoherence of potentiality from these field interactions. But the ‘fields’ are just formulae. They’re our manifestations of how logic and mathematics make sense of interactions of potentiality in relation to the current understanding we have about the universe, which allow us to make predictions about this universe well beyond our own limited, minuscule and temporary existence.

The ‘fields’ exist because without them, we have no solid evidence or logical explanation for our interactions with this atemporal potentiality of the universe. All we have are our discrete and limited observations, and the conceptual relations that our mind constructs from all possible, potential and actual interactions we may be aware of across the universe - past, present and future, mysterious and predictable, desired and despised, unlikely, averted and inevitable...

These ‘fields’ mark the threshold of our scientific uncertainty - something I think we’re going to have to face eventually. Quantum mechanics suggests that this is our new reality.

Reply to Possibility That's plausible except there are some fields we can map or interact with. A magnet in the presence of iron filings will show the magnetic field lines. Light rays are the field lines of electromagnetism. And of course there is gravity.

I think the fields are what is real, and the particles are the potential interactions. Unless there is some further reality underlying fields.

Another interesting property of fields is that they coexist in the same location (or all locations), unlike ordinary objects. Materialism was wrong. Ordinary stuff isn't ontologically fundamental. Of course that was true once the subatomic particles were discovered and QM became a theory.

The world isn't material. It's something else. The material stuff of everyday experience emerges from that. And it's not even predominate. Dark energy, dark matter and neutrinos make up most of the universe.

For that matter, time and space likely aren't fundamental either.

Quoting Marchesk

The world isn't material. It's something else. The material stuff of everyday experience emerges from that

Ok. But "everyday experience" is the world. So why not assume "that" is fundamental?

Quoting Pantagruel

Ok. But "everyday experience" is the world. So why not assume "that" is fundamental?

Because science tells us of many things we don't experience that result in the world we do experience. Radio waves and atoms are good examples.

Why would we ever get sick if it weren't for invisible germs and problems with our cells (cancer, auto-immune, etc) causing the problem? Sickness is only an experience because we have material bodies. Death is only a reality for the same reason. So is getting high or drunk.

Quoting Marchesk

Because science tells us of many things we don't experience that result in the world we do experience. Radio waves and atoms are good examples.

That doesn't discount the reality of the things which we do experience.

Quoting Pantagruel

That doesn't discount the reality of the things which we do experience.

Sure, but they're not fundamental. And it's not clear whether our ordinary conceptions of objects is coherent when factoring in their physical constitution, but it works pragmatically for us.

Fundamental to what? Not everyday experience.

Quoting Pantagruel

Fundamental to what? Not everyday experience.

Ontology and also physics.

Are you suggesting that science grounds metaphysics? Metaphysics isn't the same as science.

Quoting Pantagruel

Are you suggesting that science grounds metaphysics? Metaphysics isn't the same as science.

Right, but metaphysics should be informed by science. It would be philosophically ignorant to espouse the five elements nowadays.

Just like how discussions of the mind should be informed by neuroscience. Espousing a theory of mind at odds with neuroscience would be empirically invalid.

Espousing the fundamental reality of mental processes doesn't contradict quantum field theory.

Reply to Pantagruel The problem is that mental processes don't seem to be fundamental. They exist when brains develop, which only happened after animal life evolved.

Panpsychism would be an alternative that's fundamental.

Quoting Marchesk

The problem is that mental processes don't seem to be fundamental. They exist when brains develop, which only happened after animal life evolved.

As far as we know, maybe. On the other hand there is evidence of "distributed cognition" and "collective cognition" that suggests consciousness may involve more than meets the eye (just like the electromagnetic spectrum). All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. However there are other mortal things besides men. You can recast the syllogism using consciousness as the major premise. You are making a material-reductionist assumption.

Quoting Marchesk

The problem is that mental processes don't seem to be fundamental. They exist when brains develop, which only happened after animal life evolved.

That’s because you see it a through the materialist paradigm, that mind is an output of brain. What if there are biological fields (like Sheldrake’s morphic fields) that are formative for the development of life-forms? How would science detect such fields? What if evolutionary development is driven neither by ‘divine creation’ nor by survival of the fittest, but by a latent tendency in the Universe to realise states of conscious awareness? Then the brain is not the originator, but more like the necessary corollary, of evolutionary development. (Such ideas are considered orthogenetic and therefore generally taboo, although from a philosophical perspective that’s no reason not to consider them.)

A second point is that when humans evolve to the point of being able to use language and reason, then they’ve transcended the biological. After all, the basic ‘furniture of reason’ - such things as the laws of identity and logic, and fundamental arithmetic - are not the product of biology. We’ve evolved to the point of being able to grasp them, but it doesn’t make them a ‘product of the brain’.

Reply to Wayfarer :up:

Quoting Marchesk

Notice how fields are different than old fashioned materialism. They're invisible and intangible except when generating forces and particles that we can interact with, such as with gravity or photons.

In my personal worldview, Enformationism, I place all the various fields postulated by quantum theorists under the heading of a general Information Field. This is based on the little-known fact that what used to be called Metaphysical (Mental) Information is also Physical, in the sense that it can be quantified (Shannon bits). Some researchers are even treating Energy as a form of Information, since the deconstruction of Information is Entropy. Putting together the original Mental meaning and the modern Physical usage of Information, my thesis proposes that the general Information Field of the universe is equivalent to an Energy Field, that I call EnFormAction. It's the cause of all change in the world.

Quoting Possibility

The way I see it, what is most fundamental in the universe is not ‘stuff’, but interaction.

That fundamental "Interaction" sounds like a reference to Energy. But it could also refer to Communication. My term EnFormAction unites both of those meanings into a universal causal field, from which both Matter and Mind eventually emerge from evolution. It's fundamental in that it is the essence of everything in the universe.

Quoting Marchesk

The world isn't material. It's something else.

That something else is what I call EnFormAction. Which is a combination of Energy and Intention (guided force), similar to the concept of Will. This is not a religious concept, but it is Metaphysical, in the sense of "something else" than matter. It is also related to Plato's theory of Forms.

Quoting Pantagruel

Are you suggesting that science grounds metaphysics? Metaphysics isn't the same as science.

Newtonian Science is the basis of Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics cannot be fully reconciled with Classical Materialism. Instead, by introducing concepts such as immaterial Fields, and Virtual Particles, physics is now encroaching on the old philosophical specialty of Metaphysics.

Quoting Marchesk

Panpsychism would be an alternative that's fundamental.

The Information Field is similar to the ancient notion of Panpsychism, except that Consciousness is a late development from the evolution of EnFormAction.



Enformationism, EnFormAction, Enformy, Energy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Energy is Information : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

Quoting Marchesk

Just like how discussions of the mind should be informed by neuroscience. Espousing a theory of mind at odds with neuroscience would be empirically invalid.

On my blog, I just posted a book review of Donald Hoffman's, The Case Against Reality, which makes an attempt to explain human consciousness in a manner that takes the paradoxes and abnormalities of Quantum Theory to be natural and normal. He doesn't deny Reality, but merely offers an analogy to help us make sense of why Consciousness doesn't seem to fit into our current understanding of physical Nature. Hoffman is a cognitive researcher, but his theory is at odds with current neuroscience, specifically the Incredible Hypothesis by Francis Crick that the mind is nothing more than nattering neurons. Hoffman presents a clever metaphor to illustrate his theory that the human mind creates a mental model of Reality, which it then treats as-if it is real.

Quoting Marchesk

That's plausible except there are some fields we can map or interact with. A magnet in the presence of iron filings will show the magnetic field lines. Light rays are the field lines of electromagnetism. And of course there is gravity.

I think the fields are what is real, and the particles are the potential interactions. Unless there is some further reality underlying fields.

I’m not denying the fields are ‘real’, nor am I denying that we can interact with them or map them - just not directly and not completely. What I’m saying is that these maps and lines correspond to the relationships we can observe or measure through our interactions with the universe, but we cannot presume that this is what they ARE, any more than we could presume 150 years ago that atoms were indivisible and therefore fundamental.

Everything we ‘know’ about these ‘fields’ consists of our conceptual relations of formulated potential and actual interactions. What we don’t know about what they are or what underlies them consists of unrecognised potential or possible interactions from which we (or our scientific methods) are currently ignorant, isolated or excluded to some extent. This is also the case for ‘stuff’ that we know or don’t know, and ‘stuff’ that is known or unknown by everything else in the universe. What is fundamental in our universe is interaction: from which all information manifests as the ‘stuff’ of reality.

Quoting Gnomon

Newtonian Science is the basis of Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics cannot be fully reconciled with Classical Materialism. Instead, by introducing concepts such as immaterial Fields, and Virtual Particles, physics is now encroaching on the old philosophical specialty of Metaphysics.

By definition Metaphysics and science are different things and play different roles. Any attempt to fuse them confuses the fundamental nature of each. That being said, of course both metaphysics and science can evolve. I also find the link between informational entropy and thermodynamics compelling.

Quoting Gnomon

The way I see it, what is most fundamental in the universe is not ‘stuff’, but interaction.
— Possibility
That fundamental "Interaction" sounds like a reference to Energy. But it could also refer to Communication. My term EnFormAction unites both of those meanings into a universal causal field, from which both Matter and Mind eventually emerge from evolution. It's fundamental in that it is the essence of everything in the universe.

It can refer to BOTH energy AND communication (information) - but I’m not convinced that a new term is either necessary or helpful, and I don’t think adding interaction as another ‘field’ separate from gravity, electromagnetism, etc makes sense, either.

Talking about the universe in terms of interacting ‘fields’ is probably more accurate than interacting ‘events’ (Rovelli) or ‘objects’ (classical physics). But a ‘field’ is, by definition, the map of a potential interaction in relation to spacetime. So when we talk about interaction between fields, we’re not talking about time-dependent causality - I think it might have more to do with quantum decoherence.

Quoting Pantagruel

By definition Metaphysics and science are different things and play different roles.

I'll quibble with your equation of "science" with "physics". Actually, the general term "science" simply refers to knowledge. And that knowledge can be drawn from investigations into the physical world of atoms; but it can also be drawn from investigations into the metaphysical world of mind. Aristotle wrote two volumes on the current knowledge of his era. Very little of the subject matter of the Physics volume is now accepted by modern scientists. But the discussions in the Metaphysics volume were focused. not on the material world itself, but on how humans perceive and understand their relationship to reality. Thus, many of the topics of Metaphysics are now studied in the sciences of Psychology, Sociology, History, and Philosophy.

So, I would say that, by definition, Metaphysics and Physics are different subjects, with different roles in gaining knowledge and understanding. Physics looks at the outside world, while Metaphysics looks within. Materialist scientists, at least since Descartes, have drawn a hard line between Mind & Body in order to exclude Metaphysics from being a valid subject of empirical study. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics has blurred that line, with its discovery that the "objective" observer cannot study his subject without becoming a part of the system being studied. Consequently, empirical methods leave scientists struggling with paradoxes and absurdities.

That's why, when I use the term "Metaphysics", I'm merely momentarily focusing on the Yin aspect of reality, while ignoring the Yang. But ultimately, I am aware that they are one and the same. And some mainstream Quantum scientists have come to the same conclusion. Hence, they are forced to use both physical (empirical) and metaphysical (philosophical) techniques.


Quantum Metaphysics : https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/quantum-ontology-a-guide-to-the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283352753_Quantum_Metaphysics_A_New_Paradigm

Quoting Possibility

It can refer to BOTH energy AND communication (information) - but I’m not convinced that a new term is either necessary or helpful, and I don’t think adding interaction as another ‘field’ separate from gravity, electromagnetism, etc makes sense, either.

If the term "Information" can refer to both topics, why not use a term that combines them into a single concept? My BothAnd philosophy is similar to the Yin/Yang worldview of Taoism. Science studies fragments, while philosophy (metaphysics) studies Wholes. EnFormAction is not intended to be a scientific term for labeling parts, but instead, a philosophical concept for understanding the whole cosmos. It doesn't add "another" field, it combines all of the above into a single Information Field. With that kind of holistic terminology, we can study the universe as-if it is not just atoms-in-the-void, but a universal Mind, processing Information. That's not an empirical scientific perspective; but I think it is a valid philosophical worldview.

Holism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Reply to Gnomon I'll quibble with your quibble, since the original derivation of physics - phusis or nature - arguably generalizes to all of the natural sciences, not only physics. Moreover, to the extent that Psychology, Sociology, etc. are scientific - that is, follow the scientific method of experimentation - they are indeed true sciences. Citing Popper, who I'm now reading, any thesis capable of being falsified (through experiment and evidence) is scientific. Metaphysics specifically does not attempt to make testable predictions. If it did, then it would be science. No doubt the boundaries are always shifting though, and worth monitoring closely.... :)

Quoting Pantagruel

I'll quibble with your quibble, since the original derivation of physics - phusis or nature - arguably generalizes to all of the natural sciences, not only physics.

Exactly. That's why Aristotle didn't make a hard distinction between the topic of Nature (physics), and the topic of Human Nature (metaphysics). It was only centuries later that Human Nature was separated from Nature by labeling volume two as Metaphysics, and reserving its study for effete philosophers, and eccentric mystics, instead of practical down-to-earth scientists.

Now, the modern realism of Quantum Theory is beginning to reunite Man and Nature into a single dynamic system with many functions and roles. :nerd:

Just seen this and won't lie, you guys are miles above me in the brainwaves department, but I remember chatting with some friends about "what life is?" lol.

We eventually came to a simplified conclusion that Biology is a process of Physics which operates via Chemistry.

Don't know why, but that gave me a sense of contentment.

Reply to Gnomon Interesting links. Thanks.

I've dabbled in mathematical vector fields for years, particularly time-dependent fields. If it were possible I would post some intriguing images, but there are problems doing so. We'll see. :nerd:

Quoting Trooper149

We eventually came to a simplified conclusion that Biology is a process of Physics which operates via Chemistry.

Don't know why, but that gave me a sense of contentment.

If that materialistic worldview gives you a feeling of contentment, join the club. It's the default worldview of most simple-minded humans since time began : "what you see is all that matters" --- except for the spooky stuff of gods & spirits. But complex thinkers like philosophers are not content with the superficial appearances of physics and chemistry. Instead they also wonder about the unseen mysteries of psychology. And by including the role of Information in the real world, we can finally begin to understand that spooky stuff, as we learn how the mind works : the thinking function of biology.

In my simple worldview, Physics evolved into Chemistry, which evolved into Biology, which evolved into Psychology. And the last phase is currently mastering all the previous phases. :nerd:

Quoting Gnomon

If the term "Information" can refer to both topics, why not use a term that combines them into a single concept? My BothAnd philosophy is similar to the Yin/Yang worldview of Taoism. Science studies fragments, while philosophy (metaphysics) studies Wholes. EnFormAction is not intended to be a scientific term for labeling parts, but instead, a philosophical concept for understanding the whole cosmos. It doesn't add "another" field, it combines all of the above into a single Information Field. With that kind of holistic terminology, we can study the universe as-if it is not just atoms-in-the-void, but a universal Mind, processing Information. That's not an empirical scientific perspective; but I think it is a valid philosophical worldview.

I can understand and appreciate your holistic approach to the concept of a ‘universal mind’ processing information, as well as your use of created terminology to avoid (or delay) the scientific or philosophical rigour of relating your worldview to established concepts - either in science or philosophy. It’s a slow and frustrating process - but I think it’s worth the effort, and I don’t think a modern philosophy can afford to isolate its terminology from science anymore, let alone from established philosophical thought. FWIW I get the feeling we’re roughly on the same page here, new terminology aside.

I think your use of the term ‘field’ is misleading when you combine and look at it holistically - it implies a single mathematical formula for the relationship between this information and the ‘universal mind’ concept, but there isn’t one. Each of the four fundamental fields has a unique and irreducible formula that requires an input of four-dimensional information as time-independent ‘values’ (or 3D information in relation to time values). Theoretically, if this ‘universal mind’ has the capacity to combine these field formulae with the other nine in relation to all the existing four-dimensional information in the universe, then I think the result is not a single information or causal ‘field’ but an additional structural aspect: a fifth dimension based on potential interaction, in which the information is structured as time-independent value relations (both quantitative and qualitative) - in reference to an experiencing, five-dimensional subject.

The logical and psychological information processing of a ‘universal mind’ is only part of the story. If you want to get to a universality beyond the emotions, fears and beliefs of an integrated ‘mind’ (one inseparable from its physicality), then you’re looking at a six-dimensional aspect of pure relation beyond value or significance: what matters is not just what is significant to all of us, but also what matters to everyone and everything else relative to their significance to us. Then the entire universe matters, and we’re not missing anything. Then the evolution and integration of information from physics to chemistry to biology to sociology/psychology to an holistic universe starts to make more sense.

Quoting Possibility

your use of created terminology to avoid (or delay) the scientific or philosophical rigour of relating your worldview to established concepts - either in science or philosophy.

Quoting Possibility

I don’t think a modern philosophy can afford to isolate its terminology from science anymore,

I use my own coined terms (neologisms) specifically because of the broad range and technical complexity of the subject. Enformationism is Science, Religion, Philosophy, and Cosmology all combined into a cohesive worldview. It's my own personal Theory of Everything. My special terminology is intended, not to "avoid or delay scientific or philosophical rigor", but to present my ideas in words that mean what I intend them to mean, not as they are used in various conventional contexts (pigeonholes). If you will look at the Introduction of the Enformationism thesis, you will see that the concept originated from layman's study of the sciences of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. It is not intended to be isolated from Science, but to be integrated with it.

Since I am neither a conventionally trained scientist nor a philosopher, my vocabulary is unabashedly un-conventional. I have an extensive Glossary and a Blog to give specific meanings and contextual applications of each term. Is it quackery or philosophy? --- you decide.

Quoting Possibility

I think your use of the term ‘field’ is misleading . . . . if this ‘universal mind’ has the capacity to combine these field formulae with the other nine

I used the mathematical notion of a "field" as an analogy, not as a literal description of the universal Mind. Besides, a mathematical "field" is not a physical object, but a metaphysical metaphor, treated as-if there was an infinite array of non-dimensional points in space. I think you took my analogy too literally.

Quoting Possibility

If you want to get to a universality beyond the emotions, fears and beliefs of an integrated ‘mind’ (one inseparable from its physicality),

The "Universal Mind" that I am referring to is already beyond "emotions, fears and beliefs" because it is non-physical. It is not in the universe, but the world is in the Mind. It is separable from physicality only in the sense that it transcends space-time. So, if you want to get on the same page with me, you'll have to go clear out of the material world.


Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/index.html

Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html

PanEnDeism : All-in-G*D; the physical world is a creation of universal Mind : the Enformer.

I mean no disrespect - I’m not trying to refute your theories, but to build on them. If it seems like I’m focusing only on where our theories diverge, it’s only because I see the potential in your worldview. I can follow your analogies, and for the most part I don’t find them to be ‘quackery’ at all - just lacking in structural relations to reality, but that’s a common feature of speculative philosophy. My own theories are remarkably similar to yours in many ways: including the incorporation of quantum mechanics and information theory, and the evolution of information processing through physics, chemistry, biology and then psychology.

I’m certainly not a materialist, but the topic here is modern realism, so I think it’s useful to see how a theory incorporating ‘fieldism’ stacks up to materialism in relation to reality. I think that integrating your philosophy (much of which I agree with) with science is going to require you to adjust how you see it all structured in relation to reality - whether or not you agree with my approach. It’s a shame you seem overly attached to a particular structure - you have a lot of really great concepts to work with.

Quoting Gnomon

I used the mathematical notion of a "field" as an analogy, not as a literal description of the universal Mind. Besides, a mathematical "field" is not a physical object, but a metaphysical metaphor, treated as-if there was an infinite array of non-dimensional points in space. I think you took my analogy too literally.

I never said a mathematical ‘field’ was a physical object, but a relation of potential interaction in space. Just because it’s metaphysical doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t also be scientific. Calling your use of the term a ‘metaphor’ only avoids a scientific examination of the relation, without eliminating the need for it. I get that your use of ‘field’ is an analogy - I’m only trying to integrate your philosophy with science. And ‘non-dimensional points in space’ doesn’t make sense: space IS a dimensional relation, so all points in space are dimensional.

Quoting Gnomon

The "Universal Mind" that I am referring to is already beyond "emotions, fears and beliefs" because it is non-physical. It is not in the universe, but the world is in the Mind. It is separable from physicality only in the sense that it transcends space-time. So, if you want to get on the same page with me, you'll have to go clear out of the material world.

You can’t go ‘clear out of the material world’ and expect to remain inseparable from it. Transcending space-time is not about disregarding it entirely, but about relating to all of it from a point beyond, recognising that this point suggests more to reality, and increasing awareness of that ‘more’ - always in relation to all of space-time. The information processing of the individual human mind already transcends space-time, so what you’re describing here is not beyond the universe at all, but is already related to the ‘material world’ in very particular ways.

The way I see it, there is a universality that transcends even this concept of ‘mind’.

Reply to Possibility love this, agree wholeheartedly

Quoting Gnomon

If that materialistic worldview gives you a feeling of contentment, join the club. It's the default worldview of most simple-minded humans since time began

Actually John Searle has claimed that the average man on the street is a Cartesian, and I tend to agree with him. Most people have a strong intuition that there is 'more than meets the eye' and so tend to fall back (consciously or unconsciously) to a substantial dualist position.

Quoting Possibility

just lacking in structural relations to reality,

I didn't feel disrespected --- just misunderstood; in that you think I'm ignoring Science. Your knowledge of my thesis may be limited to the few posts on this forum. But it's much more comprehensive than that, more scientific and more structural. However, it is mostly concerned with the cutting edge of Physics, which encounters paradoxes that could be better understood in terms of Information Theory. Information has a mathematical logical "structure" of its own.

Quoting Possibility

I’m certainly not a materialist, but the topic here is modern realism, so I think it’s useful to see how a theory incorporating ‘fieldism’ stacks up to materialism in relation to reality.

Actually, I think "materialism" is an appropriate assumption for classical Physics, including Chemistry and Biology. It's only when research focuses on cosmic and quantum scale "reality" that Materialism becomes misleading and self-defeating. Likewise, Psychology and Sociology can make valid discoveries using materialist assumptions. But when they get into some mental or mystical topics, an understanding of the ubiquitous role of immaterial Information would be helpful.

Quoting Possibility

It’s a shame you seem overly attached to a particular structure

What particular "structure" is that?

Quoting Possibility

And ‘non-dimensional points in space’ doesn’t make sense: space IS a dimensional relation, so all points in space are dimensional.

I was referring to the mathematical definition of a generic Field, as an "algebraic structure" composed of dimensionless points. In Field Mathematics, a point is assumed to have a location in space, but no size. Maxwell and others used this abstract concept to describe such intangible things as electro-magnetic fields. Those imaginary points are assigned an X-value, as-if they were real material objects. But it's just a metaphor.

Field Definition : A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure which is widely used in algebra, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics. . . . The best known fields are the field of rational numbers, the field of real numbers and the field of complex numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

Quoting Possibility

You can’t go ‘clear out of the material world’ and expect to remain inseparable from it.

I didn't say that G*D is "inseparable" from the material world. The concept of G*D is an abstraction, similar to the Tao of Laozi. It is both transcendent and immanent. The physical world is made of G*D-stuff, which is Information, or EnFormAction as I call it. It's difficult to discuss such formless notions in materialistic language, which is why the Dao De Ching is mostly poetry, and my thesis requires portmanteau (BothAnd) words.

Quoting Possibility

The information processing of the individual human mind already transcends space-time,

I would say that the information "processing" of the brain is a physical mechanism. It's only the information itself (meaning) that transcends space-time. Meaning has no spatial coordinates, and is not bound by time. Meaning is the content of physical vehicles (material symbol vs referent). So, like most topics in Enformationism, it's BothAnd.

Quoting Possibility

The way I see it, there is a universality that transcends even this concept of ‘mind’.

Something that transcends space-time? Something infinite and eternal? That's what I refer to as G*D, as an analogy to the ancient philosophical notions of Brahman, Logos, God, Allah, Tao, etc. Another definition of G*D is the "ground of being and becoming", which I call simply BEING.

Dao : "In the beginning was the Dao, which is changeless, formless, and indivisible, but also generative, transforming, and fertile." God Is Not One, by Stephen Prothro


PS___I didn't begin to develop the thesis of Enformationism from a prior notion of traditional gods. Instead, as I constructed a scientific worldview for the 21st century, the parallels with ancient religious/philosophical concepts became apparent.

Quoting Pantagruel

Actually John Searle has claimed that the average man on the street is a Cartesian, and I tend to agree with him.

I agree. But, in my reply to Trooper, I was referring to the typical non-scientist's acceptance of the materialist worldview --- as it relates to Science. As intuitive Cartesians, they tend to separate their scientific understanding from their religious beliefs. Of course there are exceptions, but most folks seem to be "content" to accept the authority of scientific experts on materialistic matters, and religious experts on religious matters. They are not concerned with abstruse philosophical or theological arguments about dualistic reality. This is just my personal observation, so I don't have survey numbers.

PS__Besides, my own worldview could be considered as Dualism within Monism, since I make a philosophical distinction between Matter & Mind, but combine both under the heading of EnFormAction. I don't have a problem with Decartes' pragmatic resolution to the contentious Body/Soul, Science/Religion debate. But, for my own purposes, ultimately it's all ONE. For a materialistic analogy, the Big Bang Singularity gave birth to the Multiplicity of the universe. Like a biological cell, one thing divided into two, and from that point forward Duality, Symmetry,and Complementarity were inherent in reality.

Quoting Gnomon

I didn't feel disrespected --- just misunderstood; in that you think I'm ignoring Science. Your knowledge of my thesis may be limited to the few posts on this forum. But it's much more comprehensive than that, more scientific and more structural. However, it is mostly concerned with the cutting edge of Physics, which encounters paradoxes that could be better understood in terms of Information Theory. Information has a mathematical logical "structure" of its own.

Well I have read a fair amount of your website, and I maintain that while you make good use of science when it suits, the connection you make between science and poetry is murky. It is this structural connection that I’m most interested in, because I agree with much of what you’ve written either side of it, and what I don’t agree with seems to come down to this murkiness, in my opinion. This discussion seems to highlight some of that murkiness.

Quoting Gnomon

Actually, I think "materialism" is an appropriate assumption for classical Physics, including Chemistry and Biology. It's only when research focuses on cosmic and quantum scale "reality" that Materialism becomes misleading and self-defeating. Likewise, Psychology and Sociology can make valid discoveries using materialist assumptions. But when they get into some mental or mystical topics, an understanding of the ubiquitous role of immaterial Information would be helpful.

I agree that the materialist science of classical physics, chemistry and biology is a useful base to start from, but I don’t think you can apply materialist assumptions only when it suits. This is where I think most structural relations struggle in formulating a ToE. Information, for instance, can be both ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ - it’s the point at which our understanding of information makes that shift which is most difficult to structure: at the origins of the universe, life, consciousness and the self. It’s at these points that materialist assumptions fail us, but understanding how and why they fail us is the key to a ToE. Materialist assumptions aren’t tools you can pick up and put down - an inability to make sense of the ‘mental’ and ‘mystical’ is inherent in the assumptions, not the science. The trick is to retain the science using an alternative structural relation that incorporates an explanation of metaphysics.

Quoting Gnomon

What particular "structure" is that?

In this discussion, I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best. I will try to explain what I’m getting at when I have more time. I also think the ‘universe inside mind’ structure can be particularly misleading and self-defeating when looking at consciousness and the self in relation to ‘material’ information. But that may be for another discussion.

Quoting Possibility

the connection you make between science and poetry is murky.

Do you mean that I don't make a clear distinction between them? If so, that's probably because my BothAnd philosophy is Holistic, and looks for commonalities where most people only see differences. BothAnd is a Yin/Yang worldview in which the line between Black & White is arbitrary, indicated graphically by a white dot in the black area, and a black dot in the white area. So, in reality the whole circle is a gradual shade of gray. That may be what you call "murky". If not, please give me a specific example of murkiness.

Yin-Yang : https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-hidden-meanings-of-yin-and-yang-john-bellaimey



Quoting Possibility

It is this structural connection that I’m most interested in,

Please give me an example of a "structural connection" between Science and Serendipity that would satisfy your need for clarity.

Quoting Possibility

Materialist assumptions aren’t tools you can pick up and put down - an inability to make sense of the ‘mental’ and ‘mystical’ is inherent in the assumptions, not the science.

That's true, but most people, including scientists, are intuitive dualists, and require a "structural" division between dichotomies. A few scientists can bridge that gap to get the best of both worlds, mechanical and mystical. And, as a rationalist-rhetorical type, I am still learning to deal with the intuitive poetic side. I am also leery of the tendency for people to lapse into anti-science magical thinking, when they try to deal with murky mystical concepts. My worldview has much in common with New Age philosophy, but I try to avoid the spooky paranormal, pseudo-scientific side-tracks. I am not a romantic or mystic by nature.

Back in the 80s, I was introduced to this holistic-science idea in The Tao of Physics : An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, by Fritjof Capra. In it, the author said "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs both." He may have been the first Hippie Scientist.

NOTE : In China, the home of Confucius and Lao Tse, many people try to combine the doctrinal, rational, conventional, prosaic, pragmatic, communal attitude of Confucianism with the ineffable, irrational, unorthodox, poetic, romantic, individualistic attitude of Daoism. But for most humans that is a tricky and frustrating balancing act.


Quoting Possibility

I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best.

Please do explain. The basic problem here is that abstract poetic & mystical & mental concepts can only be discussed in terms of concrete metaphors. Unfortunately, many people take metaphors and analogies literally, so they completely miss the point, hidden in the gray area between as-is and as-if.

Quoting Possibility

In this discussion, I think your use of a mathematical concept as metaphor to connect physics to ‘mind’ is murky at best.

Apparently, I misunderstood your intention for this thread as similar to my own usage of the term "Field" to denote the distinction between Realism and Idealism. So, when you contrasted "Fieldism" with "Materialism", I immediately thought of my own notion of a "Mind Field". The only hit I got on Google for "mind field", though, was for a TV documentary that has nothing to do with my concept, except that it is an evocative word-play. I thought the metaphor would be more apparent and common. I was wrong. If I have hi-jacked your thread, I apologize.

A magnetic field is imagined as pervading the universe with little dimensionless magnets (illustrated with arrows) at every vector point in space. Likewise, I imagine the Mind Field as pervading the universe with little dimensionless information elements (bits) at each mathematical (value) point in space. The usual definition of a field is intended to be materialistic, but the points or vectors that make-up the field are not made of matter or even energy, but of immaterial potential. Information is also Potential and Value..

Note: Technically, the MInd Field metaphor may be more like a Gravity Field in that its arrows are uni-polar and universal, rather than being generated in specific locations by flowing energy. The gravity arrows point toward any center of mass. The Information arrows point toward Intention; but that's another just-so story.


Magnetic Field (vector field): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Mind Field : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Field

Potential : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Quoting Marchesk

According to physics, the most fundamental stuff of science is fields, not particles. The Standard Model lays out 13 fields which exist throughout the universe, oscillate and interact with one another to generate everything else. Particles are packets of energy in the fields described by quantum mechanics. There are three other unknown ones: Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Inflation.

I was just talking about this in another thread, and realized that I'm confused on a point of physics. I know two things:

* The 13 fields. I definitely can't name them all. There's gravitation, and electroweak, which is electromagnetism plus the weak nuclear force; then the strong nuclear force, and the Higgs field. I don't know about any others. But basically a field in physics is a thingie -- usually a vector or a tensor -- attached to each point of space. So you have a vector field or a tensor field evolving over time. Basically multivariable calculus on a LOT of steroids, into the realm of differential geometry and general relativity.

* In quantum theory, everything is a probability wave. An electron, for example, is not to be thought of as a point-like thing at all. It's not a tiny little charge of electricity located at some coordinates in space. What it is, is a probability distribution that determines the chance that if someone happened to look at the electron, they'd find it in that location. If nobody looks, it doesn't have a location. Or it has all locations. Same thing. Once an observation is done, the electron is found to be in some position or state. How this all works is an open problem at the intersection of physics and metaphysics.

I think in my mind I've conflated the fields with the probability waves. Can anyone fix my physics? How do the probability distributions interact with the various force fields, if it's ok to call them that. Gravity and electromagnetism and so forth.

Quoting Gnomon

Apparently, I misunderstood your intention for this thread as similar to my own usage of the term "Field" to denote the distinction between Realism and Idealism. So, when you contrasted "Fieldism" with "Materialism", I immediately thought of my own notion of a "Mind Field". The only hit I got on Google for "mind field", though, was for a TV documentary that has nothing to do with my concept, except that it is an evocative word-play. I thought the metaphor would be more apparent and common. I was wrong. If I have hi-jacked your thread, I apologize.

Not my thread, so it’s possible that it’s me hijacking the thread, not you.

Quoting Gnomon

Do you mean that I don't make a clear distinction between them? If so, that's probably because my BothAnd philosophy is Holistic, and looks for commonalities where most people only see differences. BothAnd is a Yin/Yang worldview in which the line between Black & White is arbitrary, indicated graphically by a white dot in the black area, and a black dot in the white area. So, in reality the whole circle is a gradual shade of gray. That may be what you call "murky". If not, please give me a specific example of murkiness.

It’s more that you focus on the commonalities as if there are no differences. This is the problem with metaphor. There’s a reason why Yin/Yang is drawn the way it is. Rather than the whole circle being a gradual shade of grey, the small circle inside each area suggests that there is a relationship between Black & White that establishes a structure of inclusion. Understanding that structural relationship is the key to a holistic worldview.

Quoting Gnomon

A magnetic field is imagined as pervading the universe with little dimensionless magnets (illustrated with arrows) at every vector point in space. Likewise, I imagine the Mind Field as pervading the universe with little dimensionless information elements (bits) at each mathematical (value) point in space. The usual definition of a field is intended to be materialistic, but the points or vectors that make-up the field are not made of matter or even energy, but of immaterial potential. Information is also Potential and Value..

This is not how I imagine a magnetic field, and I don’t think the field is intended to be as materialistic as that. Rather, the field describes a mathematical relationship between moving electrical charges and predictions about these movements, regardless of time. The thing about materialism is that it assumes reality is only 3+1 dimensions - objects in time - so everything that cannot be directly observed/measured in time must be described as a logical relationship to 3D value points in space. The way I see it, the ‘dimensionless magnets’ you refer to are really immaterial, logically structured relationships or formulas of potentiality. So if you have information on two magnetised points in 3D space, then you can calculate and map the potential of their interaction according to the magnetic field, before determining and initiating actions in 4D ‘reality’.

So when you look at a combined ‘field’ of mind, you’re trying to map a structural relationship between several different formulas of potentiality (which is the work of quantum field theory and other ToEs in physics), but you need to also consider how these relate to other relationships of potentiality that employ alternative value structures to logic, such as qualitative relations, human motives and sociological structures. Materialism either doesn’t recognise these, isolates them as ‘mental phenomena’ (intuitive dualism), or assumes they’re all logically structured in some way. All of these are relationships of potentiality: they are real, immaterial, outside time and provide information that allows us to predict, prevent, and enable potential interactions. Most importantly, they are all structured relative to an observer: a point that exists beyond space and time, relating events and objects according to certain values or significance. Materialism considers this point to be objective, but quantum mechanics recognises the observer as subjective - one of many possible observers. This then points to another type of relationship between these possible observers - which materialism envisages as a multiverse, a ‘many worlds’ interpretation.

The way I see it, these relationships of potentiality - the combined ‘field’ of mind - all refer to five-dimensional information: potential and value.

Reply to fishfry Nobody knows whether probability waves are real. The wave function just tells us the likelihood of finding a value when there's a measurement. The thirteen fields are actually seventeen (I misremembered). Twelve matter for all the fundamental particles (six quarks six leptons, gluon, photon, W and Z bosons), the four forces of (EM, gravity, strong and weak). And the Higgs field.

Then whatever dark matter, energy and inflation are.

Quoting Possibility

Understanding that structural relationship is the key to a holistic worldview.

Apparently, when you say "structural" relationship, you are actually referring to an immaterial "logical" or mathematical relationship : this is related to that by this value. I was assuming you were looking for some physical connection between Mind & Matter or Fieldism and Materialism. Maybe something like the "silver thread" that connects body & soul in an out-of-body experience. :smile:

The logical "structure" of the Yin/Yang symbol is central to my BothAnd philosophy. My "focus on the commonalities" was simply an attempt to establish the analogy between Universal Mind (EnFormAction) and the various fields postulated by physicists to explain "spooky action at a distance", such as gravity. Just as gravity is interpreted as a physical "force", EnFormAction is the creative "force" of evolution : the elan vital. But it's not a physical force; it's a metaphysical (mathematical) force :the power of ratios and relationships.

Yin-Yang Symbolism : As exemplified in the harmonious Yin/Yang symbol, the black or white halves would struggle for supremacy if not for the restraint of the encircling holistic power of the whole, like gravity pulling all toward the center. http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page5.html

Quoting Possibility

This is not how I imagine a magnetic field, and I don’t think the field is intended to be as materialistic as that.

I suspect that Maxwell's original notion of an electro-magnetic field was intended to be a metaphor. But some modern physicists think of it in more materialistic imagery, such as the notion that a field occupies space. In the quote below, "physical quantity", "number", "tensor", and "value" are all mathematical concepts that have logical (informational) definitions, but no material substance or physical dimensions.

Physical Field : In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space-time. ... In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=concept+of+field+in+physics

Quoting Possibility

All of these are relationships of potentiality:

Precisely. That's why I distinguish between Real (Actual) and Ideal (Potential), between Physical (matter) and Metaphysical (mental). The "Mind Field" is EnFormAction, which is the potential to cause change, which is similar to the physical notion of Energy, which is not a material thing, but the potential to cause change. Just as immaterial Energy can transform into Matter (E=MC\2), metaphysical EnFormAction can create all of the physical things in the world.

Quoting Possibility

The way I see it, these relationships of potentiality - the combined ‘field’ of mind - all refer to five-dimensional information: potential and value.

Three spatial dimensions plus potential and value?



PS___I have frequently been forced to explain that the word "Structure" has two meanings : 1> the bricks and steel beams that a building is constructed of , and 2> "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex." [the logical structure]

Quoting fishfry

I think in my mind I've conflated the fields with the probability waves.

That's understandable, because field theory crosses the line from material Physics into immaterial Metaphysics. The "field" is just a hypothetical "place where something happens", imagined as a body of water. The waves are changes in the field, imagined as ocean waves. So, they are not material things, but mathematical relationships. Waves of Probability are "made" of statistics, not matter. Both Fields and Waves are abstractions.

Metaphysics : "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. . . . abstract theory with no basis in reality."

Quoting Gnomon

I have frequently been forced to explain that the word "Structure" has two meanings : 1> the bricks and steel beams that a building is constructed of , and 2> "the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex." [the logical structure]

But ‘structure’ - this second definition - is not necessarily ‘logical’. This is the point i’m trying to make. Potential and value doesn’t just refer to logical relations, but also emotional, sensory, social and other qualitative values. When we determine value or potential only from logical relations, we limit our perspective of reality - in the same way that measuring ‘time’ from one position in spacetime limits our perspective of the broader universe.

Quoting Gnomon

The way I see it, these relationships of potentiality - the combined ‘field’ of mind - all refer to five-dimensional information: potential and value.
— Possibility
Three spatial dimensions plus potential and value?

Three spatial dimensions, plus time (4D), plus value (5D). Potential is another way of describing value/significance - one that has more relevance from a physics/materialist perspective. Value is a broader term that is inclusive of qualitative relations, and significance is inclusive of language and emotion. I used to refer to all of it as potentiality, but the classical concept of ‘potential’ as inherent in the actual object makes it difficult for some people to grasp the metaphysical nature of potentiality.

Quoting Possibility

But ‘structure’ - this second definition - is not necessarily ‘logical’.

By "logical" I meant "rational", in the sense of : defined by ratios and proportions. That definition includes emotions and human values, since in Enformationism, everything in the world boils down to Information : ratios and proportions; some of which are meaningful to humans.

In common usage of "logical" and "rational", the terms are deliberately intended to contrast with "emotional" and "valuable" --- as in Vulcan Logic. But in the BothAnd philosophy, it's all a matter of degree, a continuum. Everything and every idea in the world has a logical structure. But humans assign personal values to them on a good vs evil scale. Those values are relative (rational) to the evaluator. What's logical and valuable to a man, may not matter to an ant.

Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict"..
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Quoting Possibility

but the classical concept of ‘potential’ as inherent in the actual object makes it difficult for some people to grasp the metaphysical nature of potentiality.

That's why philosophers are forever defining and redefining terms. :smile:

Quoting Gnomon

That's why I distinguish between Real (Actual) and Ideal (Potential), between Physical (matter) and Metaphysical (mental). The "Mind Field" is EnFormAction, which is the potential to cause change, which is similar to the physical notion of Energy, which is not a material thing, but the potential to cause change. Just as immaterial Energy can transform into Matter (E=MC\2), metaphysical EnFormAction can create all of the physical things in the world.

I think we’re basically on the same page here, just a confusion with terms. I can recognise (now) that material is also physical, but physical is not necessarily material. But when I use the term ‘real’, I don’t necessarily mean ‘actual’, and my use of ‘potential’ doesn’t mean ‘ideal’ (a subjective reduction or collapse of value relations). Potential, as I see it, is a subjective experience of value relations that ‘transcends’ reduction to an ‘ideal’. This is where it can be confusing, because I’m not coming from a rationalist perspective - I always see potential and value as a relational structure of ‘probability waves’, not a particle relation. It seems to me that most people perceive that they could not have chosen to act other than how they acted, but that’s not how I see it. The capacity to act other than how I choose to act (all potential information) is never collapsed in my experience. So I’ve found that I’m not always understood when I talk about the reduction of potential information to actuality.

Quoting Gnomon

By "logical" I meant "rational" : defined by ratios and proportions. That is not intended to exclude emotions and human values, since in Enformationism, everything in the world boils down to Information : ratios and proportions; some of which are meaningful to humans.

In common usage of "logical" and "rational", the terms are deliberately intended to contrast with "emotional" and "valuable" --- as in Vulcan Logic. But in the BothAnd philosophy, it's all a matter of degree, a continuum. Everything and every idea in the world has a logical structure. But humans assign personal values to them on a good vs evil scale. Those values are relative (rational) to the evaluator. What's logical and valuable to a man, may not matter to an ant.

I agree that every concept can be evaluated according a logical structure - but not all information. The process of ‘boiling down’ information to ratios and proportions is limiting or reducing that information to what fits into a particular value structure before you’re even aware of what information is available. The way I see it, the common experience that what’s valuable to me may not be logical to me refutes the idea that we’re talking about a simple continuum here.

Not sure if you’ve read Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ - in it he deconstructs the concept of ‘time’ as a single variable, and reveals it as a four-dimensional structural relation of variables relative to three-dimensional information, as determined from an ‘objective’ position outside time. This relates to how I see potential and value - except the position Rovelli refers to is perceived as a subjective position within a value system that is itself a five-dimensional structural relation of variables relative to four-dimensional information. It necessarily positions ‘objectivity’ outside of all value structures, logical or otherwise (which may be another discussion).

Quoting Gnomon

Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict"..

Exploring the human experience in relation to information theory can get confusing, because computer-based information is only every binary, whereas the human experience of information takes into account the integration of four, five and even six dimensional ratios in a complex interacting system of interacting systems of interacting systems. So while a single difference in value makes a difference of ‘meaning’ in a computer system, this difference in a human system is WAY more complex, making a difference of ‘meaning’ at each level of interaction. A rational ‘difference’ therefore assumes all other variables to be equal in a ratio equation that in reality looks a bit like this: (((((A1, B1, C1, X1, Y1) : ((((A2, B2, C2, X2, Y2) : (((A3, B3, C3, X3, Y3) : ((A4, B4, C4, X4, Y4) : (A5, B5, C5, X5, Y5))))), where each variable is more complex than 0/1, and each internal system integrates its own ‘meaning’.

(PS. The numbers in the ratio equation should be subscript, if that helps. Plus, mathematics is not my forte - this is just my basic understanding of ratios at this level)

Quoting Possibility

I agree that every concept can be evaluated according a logical structure - but not all information. The process of ‘boiling down’ information to ratios and proportions is limiting or reducing that information to what fits into a particular value structure before you’re even aware of what information is available. The way I see it, the common experience that what’s valuable to me may not be logical to me refutes the idea that we’re talking about a simple continuum here.

In my thesis, Information is the basis of Logic and Math : a relationship between two values. The key word there is "value". Relationships and Ratios are nothing until evaluated (interpreted) by a mind. But Information is also the basis of Physics : Thermodynamics. So, Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values.

Information : Information has a well-defined meaning in physics. In 2003 J. D. Bekenstein claimed that a growing trend in physics was to define the physical world as being made up of information itself . . . . In thermodynamics, information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system that can interpret the information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Quoting Possibility

It necessarily positions ‘objectivity’ outside of all value structures, logical or otherwise (which may be another discussion).

For another take on Time and Objectivity, check-out Donald Hoffman's concept of "Model Dependent Realism".

Objective Time : As Einstein put it, “Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions in which we live.” One interpretation of Quantum Theory, Quantum Bayesianism10 (QB) says that “quantum states describe not the objective world but the beliefs of agents about the consequences of their actions.”
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page23.html


Quoting Possibility

Exploring the human experience in relation to information theory can get confusing, because computer-based information is only every binary, whereas the human experience of information takes into account the integration of four, five and even six dimensional ratios in a complex interacting system of interacting systems of interacting systems.

That's because Computer information processing is Binary, while human brains are Analog. Like Quantum Computers, the human brain can evaluate an infinite continuum of information from Zero to One. The logical mathematical basis of Information is a binary ratio, but analogous human reasoning goes way beyond the basics to consider fractional ratios and even irrational numbers.

Digital vs Analog : [i]A digital signal is a signal that is being used to represent data as a sequence of discrete values; at any given time it can only take on one of a finite number of values.[1][2][3] This contrasts with an analog signal, which represents continuous values; at any given time it represents a real number within a continuous range of values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal

Fieldism vs Materialism: an example of misplaced oppositionals

Materialism is not opposed to fieldism. Materialism's tenet is not that matter exists; it is that supernatural powers don't exist.

Fields are not supernatural.

And most precisely, matter exists as well. The formation of matter in terms of quantum mechanics is defined; I am not at all familiar with it. But fields manifest as matter under certain circumstances.

Matter is a function of fields; that is a given, and as such, matter may not be the fundamental component of materialistic relationships in the universe, but its name can be applied to include all those relationships alongside those that involve actual matter, that are not supernatural.

Quoting Gnomon

In my thesis, Information is the basis of Logic and Math : a relationship between two values. The key word there is "value". Relationships and Ratios are nothing until evaluated (interpreted) by a mind. But Information is also the basis of Physics : Thermodynamics. So, Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values.

I agree that information is a manifest distinction at every level of interaction: the ‘difference that makes a difference’. What I’m most interested in is the bridge itself: what is the conceptual structure of that ‘continuum’ - because it isn’t linear (a common assumption of the term). In my understanding, it’s dimensional: from the one-dimensional relationship between potentialities, through to a five-dimensional relationship of ‘mind’, and beyond to a six-dimensional relationship between all possible correlations. If you bear with me, I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from (and I apologise for the length).

At the origin of the universe, we can employ Rovelli’s explanation of quantum mechanics by way of information theory:

Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’:A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.

The origin of the universe can be described as the result of interaction between potential information, which - as you rightly point out - necessitates the prior existence of ‘mind’, but only as a structural relation. My argument is that the existence of this original ‘mind’ is contingent on something more essential, and is not universal. More importantly, this original ‘mind’ has no inherent knowledge of the universe whatsoever. It can be aware only of a vague sense of more, manifest as a capacity - in this correlation between whatever it is and whatever it is interacting with - to develop and achieve.

The initial entanglement of all particles in superposition forms a five-dimensional structure of potentiality ‘prior’ to the Big Bang. This structure of ‘mind’, it seems, is a reduction of the possible universe: a primary ‘decoherence’ that sets limitations on what this universe could possibly become in relation to value. The potentiality of the universe as a correlation of values is finite: limited by the potential energy/information available.

The next level of decoherence sets limitations on the temporal potentiality of the universe. The unfolding universe as a correlation of events must be finite: the probability of its beginning and its end would be calculable, given enough information. The unfolding of the material universe is limited by the actual energy/information available in the actual duration available.

Due to further decoherence, the relative shape, distance and direction of all objects in the universe must be measurable, and is limited by the energy/information available to the interaction between particles, as well as the durability.

This relates to Rovelli’s postulates about quantum mechanics in relation to information theory:

1.

Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’:The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system.

So efficiency of information-processing is the key that drives the evolution of the universe towards knowledge of itself.

Each particle of the universe is entangled in a correlation of potentiality, and manifests as a difference between its own capacity and that of interacting particles, with which it is not entangled - it has no awareness of the full potentiality of either particle, only actualising a potential difference as one-dimensional information: an actual, measurable atom.

It doesn’t really make sense to talk about space or time at this level of evolution, because everything that exists in the universe is at best only ‘aware’ of the universe as a vague more. Each atom remains in superposition in relation to everything else in the universe.

Atoms are a developed system of efficient, one-dimensional relations between entangled and unentangled particles, with a capacity to interact with other particles, manifesting whatever difference an interaction can make to a particle relation. This can eventually form and develop molecules as two-dimensional systems, which are then capable of integrating the difference an interaction makes to a chemical relation, to eventually form and develop different chemical reactions as three-dimensional systems, with the capacity to integrate the many differences an interaction makes to a chemical reaction, presenting opportunity to form and develop (as a rarity) cellular life as a four-dimensional system of interrelated chemical reactions.

Four-dimensional living systems have the capacity to manifest the myriad five-dimensional differences an interaction makes to a living system, including movement towards or away from and tracking/identifying three-dimensional objects in space. The manifestation of these value differences form an experiencing subject - aware of the relative temporal aspects of reality, yet only vaguely aware of value as information, actualising the distinction between experiences as integrated five-dimensional information, or value-related response to stimuli.

These experiencing, five-dimensional systems have the capacity to manifest the six-dimensional differences an interaction makes to an experiencing subject. As humans, we are aware of the relative value aspects of reality, yet only vaguely aware of meaning as distinct information beyond significance, even as we respond to it at some ‘higher level’. That we can imagine ‘squaring a circle’, for instance, points to our capacity to relate information beyond logical value structures. For the most part, though, we just don’t believe it matters. Most of us think human experience or ‘mind’ IS the universe, which is in keeping with the pattern of capacity at previous levels of awareness.

Quoting god must be atheist

Fieldism vs Materialism: an example of misplaced oppositionals

Materialism is not opposed to fieldism. Materialism's tenet is not that matter exists; it is that supernatural powers don't exist.

Fields are not supernatural.

And most precisely, matter exists as well. The formation of matter in terms of quantum mechanics is defined; I am not at all familiar with it. But fields manifest as matter under certain circumstances.

Matter is a function of fields; that is a given, and as such, matter may not be the fundamental component of materialistic relationships in the universe, but its name can be applied to include all those relationships alongside those that involve actual matter, that are not supernatural.

As mentioned, I’m not a materialist as such, but I think I understand where you’re coming from here. The rejection of the supernatural by materialists is simply a challenge to explain what we experience as a structural relation to what is measurable/observable. Fields manage this, but my point is that the logical field relations calculated by physics is far from the full picture of potentiality, let alone our relation to the universe.

‘Defined’ is not how I would describe the formation of matter as described by quantum mechanics. It’s more of a calculated probability, as are these fields. The ‘observability’ of the magnetic field in the relation between iron filings and a magnet, for instance, is a reduction of the field information itself, just as the wave pattern on the screen is a reduction of the potentiality information of a photon. So when you say ‘fields manifest as matter under certain circumstances’, you’re not quite correct.

There is a conceptual difference between ‘matter’ and ‘materialistic relationships’ in the same way as there is a difference between ‘physical’ and ‘metaphysical’, but both sets of distinction have no empirical basis. To refer to what is generally understood to be metaphysical as ‘physical’ however, is to confuse the issue - and likewise referring to materialistic relationships as ‘matter’ - although I understand your reluctance to perpetuate the distinction, which places limitations on understanding reality from a ‘materialist’ perspective.

Quoting Gnomon

Information is a continuum that bridges the imaginary gap between Physics and Metaphysics, between mathematical and human values.

Quoting Possibility

What I’m most interested in is the bridge itself: what is the conceptual structure of that ‘continuum’

In literary analysis, structural inter-relationships are usually broken-down to Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. So, if you are interested in a corporeal “bridge” you should look for a Physical connection (material) between elements. If the interest is in a meaningful link between elements the connection would be Metaphysical (mental, immaterial). If however, your interest is in the various common usages of the notion of a relationship between elements, you'd have to look at Abstract Geometry, Steel Bridges, and Romantic Love.

Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’:A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system,

The Rovelli quote seems to be looking at the notion of “correlation" from the perspective of a Classical Physicist, which requires some kind of physical contact to form a relationship. But he's a Quantum Physicist, and must deal with “spooky action at a distance” in which no material crosses the gap between particles. What does fill the vacuum between particles in space is metaphysical Information, a continuum that I call EnFormAction : the power to cause Change. In some cases it works like flowing energy, by direct contact. Yet it also works like Gravity (or Love), by mutual attraction, not like a Star Trek Tractor Beam, imagined as a stream of magnetic particles. It also manifests like Quantum Entanglement in that the only connection is logical or historical, i.e. metaphysical. So, Cosmic Enformation is like a universal Information Field : a continuum that binds all elements into a dynamic system.


Meta-physics : The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Reply to Gnomon The nature of the relationship between ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ and all of reality is precisely what I’m looking at. This ‘metaphysical information’ you’re referring to is the result of what I have been calling interaction, whether it’s between possibility, potentiality, events, objects, two-dimensional or even analog information. It appears to ‘fill the vacuum between particles in space’ because it IS what space consists of, at the level of potentiality. But it’s also more than that.

If you read Rovelli’s books, you’ll understand that he doesn’t refer to ‘spooky action at a distance’ because he recognises reality as consisting of immaterial events rather than objects: as ‘interaction’. So when he talks about a ‘physical system’, he’s not talking about particles as objects, but as systems of interaction. What he doesn’t recognise in his books is how easily this lends itself to a metaphysical continuum, by understanding ‘interaction’ as a metaphysical relation.

In writing this, I’ve noticed that my use of the term ‘interaction’ may be mistaken for an event in time, rather than the metaphysical relation I’ve been meaning. This is why I find it useful to persist with these discussions - it allows me to refine my use of language in approaching shared meaning. I apologise for the confusion.

This ‘power to cause change’ you’ve named ‘EnFormAction’ refers to potentiality, which is a fifth-dimensional level of relation between metaphysical information. This is the level that most people relate to reality, even if they only understand reality at the level of objects in time and space, or like Rovelli, as interrelated events occurring in quantum ‘fields’. Or even like yourself, understanding reality as the result of immaterial, mental relations of a ‘universal mind’.

But there is a six-dimensional level of relation, which is meaning as pure relation, or ‘love’, from which all potentiality - as a reduction of all possible metaphysical information from all possible relations - is manifest.

Quoting Possibility

But there is a six-dimensional level of relation, which is meaning as pure relation, or ‘love’, from which all potentiality - as a reduction of all possible metaphysical information from all possible relations - is manifest.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that multi-dimensional hierarchy of Information. But, in my thesis, the next higher level above immanent EnFormAction is simply transcendent G*D. In some speculative philosophies, such as Kabbalah and Theosophy, all of the lower level manifestations are emanations of the unmanifest, unknowable God : "a unitary divine principle". Their analysis of metaphysical realms is similar to my own concept, except that they are assuming that the Torah is a revelation from God. They were good guesses for their times, but I abandoned biblical revelation years ago.

So, my own "revelations" are drawn from modern science, especially Cosmology and Quantum Theory. I draw no religious implications from this personal worldview. It's not a revelation from on high, but merely an attempt to make sense of the paradoxes of the post-Big-Bang, and post-Quantum world. Since the infinite potential of G*D is all possibilities, S/he is necessarily both Love & Hate, Good & Evil, Male & Female, Positive & Negative. Any comprehensive philosophical worldview, could be turned into a religion for the masses, only by choosing one side of the coin, and by taking its metaphors literally : "God is Love". Also, by turning the abstract deity into Santa Claus or Satan.

In my thesis, the infinite creative power of G*D, EnFormAction, is manifested in reality as Energy, which is the cause of all physical change in the world. But eventually Energy has manifested as Mind, and is responsible for all cultural change in the world. Since the early 20th century, Gallieo's and Newton's cosmologies have become almost as out-dated as the Bronze Age Bible's understanding of how the world works. The 21st century is the Age of Information.


Emanationism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanationism

EnFormAction : Active Information. Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. aka : Energy; Change; The Creative Power of Evolution; the Power to Enform;

G*D : other terms for the axiomatic First Cause : LOGOS, ALL, BEING, MIND, Creator, Enformer, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. These names and associated qualities are attributed to the unknown unknowable deity as logical inferences from observation of the Creation.

PS__I have read Rovelli's, Reality Is Not What It Seems

Quoting Gnomon

I'm not sure how you arrive at that multi-dimensional hierarchy of Information. But, in my thesis, the next higher level above immanent EnFormAction is simply transcendent G*D.

Quoting Gnomon

G*D : other terms for the axiomatic First Cause : LOGOS, ALL, BEING, MIND, Creator, Enformer, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. These names and associated qualities are attributed to the unknown unknowable deity as logical inferences from observation of the Creation.

This makes some sense to me - although your list of alternative terms suggests prior knowledge of an endpoint, which I dispute. The way I see it, this transcendent G*D refers to a relation of all possible information, including illogical possibilities, such as squaring the circle, and love.

Quoting god must be atheist

Materialism is not opposed to fieldism. Materialism's tenet is not that matter exists; it is that supernatural powers don't exist.

So I thought that was naturalism, which isn't committed to materialism. You could be an idealist and a naturalist as long as ideas have no supernatural origin. Unless naturalism assumes the independent reality of the world.

Quoting god must be atheist

Matter is a function of fields; that is a given, and as such, matter may not be the fundamental component of materialistic relationships in the universe, but its name can be applied to include all those relationships alongside those that involve actual matter, that are not supernatural.

I could have made the topic: Fieldism instead of Atomism

The focus is an ontological one. What is the world fundamentally made up of? It's not the ordinary stuff we experience everyday. As contemporary physics becomes further removed from the ordinary, the question is whether materialism is the right term for saying what the fundamental stuff or reality is.

Quoting Possibility

This makes some sense to me - although your list of alternative terms suggests prior knowledge of an endpoint, which I dispute. The way I see it, this transcendent G*D refers to a relation of all possible information, including illogical possibilities, such as squaring the circle, and love.

I refer to Evolution as Ententional, because it has a direction of progression toward some unknown future state. I can only guess what that "Omega Point" might be. (see Graph below) But, because Evolution is progressing in a zig-zag path via Hegelian dialectic, I assume that the end-point is not pre-destined, but only the parameters of success are predefined --- as in Evolutionary Programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming). It's just a guess.

Since G*D is presumed to exist infinitely and eternally, the "ALL" characterization includes all logical possibilities, but the "LOGOS" label prohibits "illogical possibilities. Yet, again, I'm just guessing.


Human Nature : Essentialism
reply to Siti, page 5
[i]. . . . . In my analogy between Intelligent Evolution and Genetic Design, I indicated that the designer (human or deity) used the heuristic search process, specifically because there was no viable path directly to the goal. In the “evolved antenna” design, the barrier was computing power. So, they established parameters to be met, and let their artificial intelligence computers “stumble” upon the optimum solution by a process of trial & error. Our Programmer was a wise-wizard, in that S/he started before the beginning. It's called a "program" : a plan of action.

In the Intelligent Evolution theory, I postulate that the Programmer had no entention of creating dumb creatures like Adam & Eve, but merely had the “idea” of creating semi-autonomous intelligent creatures --- little avatars for entertainment. So, S/he simply designed a process that would “stumble” upon an optimum solution --- within the constraints of space & time, and natural laws --- by learning from its own mistakes. The design criteria & parameters are assumed to be working via Natural Selection. So the final goal was specified only in terms of a problem description. And the zig-zag path to that goal was what Hegel called “The Dialectic Process”, as contrasted with the “Didactic Process” of Intelligent Design. The Process is the Product. Playing the game is the point, not the final score. "The play's the thing". ___Shakespeare, Hamlet[/i]

Dialectic : a back & forth philosophical argument between Good & Evil. Bottom-up design.
Didactic : an autocratic method of instruction by commandment. Top-down design



The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Cosmic Progression Graph : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Quoting Marchesk

The focus is an ontological one. What is the world fundamentally made up of? It's not the ordinary stuff we experience everyday. As contemporary physics becomes further removed from the ordinary, the question is whether materialism is the right term for saying what the fundamental stuff or reality is.

That's exactly why I developed the Enformationism Thesis. It's intended to be a 21st century update to ancient theories of Atomism, Materialism, and Spiritualism. Information is all of the above. In modern physics, Information is Matter & Energy & Mind. Information can be imagined as a Mind Field permeating the real world, and manifesting in many different forms. If you doubt that assertion, I have lots of essays presenting my evidence and reasoning. :nerd:

Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
also see the sidebar

Quoting Gnomon

I refer to Evolution as Ententional, because it has a direction of progression toward some unknown future state. I can only guess what that "Omega Point" might be. (see Graph below) But, because Evolution is progressing in a zig-zag path via Hegelian dialectic, I assume that the end-point is not pre-destined, but only the parameters of success --- as in Evolutionary Programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming). It's just a guess.

This is more where I’m at - and I would interpret the ‘fitness function’ of the algorithm simply as maximal awareness, connection and collaboration.

Quoting Gnomon

Since G*D is presumed to exist infinitely and eternally, the "ALL" characterization includes all logical possibilities, but the "LOGOS" label prohibits "illogical possibilities. Yet, again, I'm just guessing.

But the ‘LOGOS’ label applies only at the level of potentiality, which ‘collapses’ the infinite and eternal possibility of G*D to five dimensions. It is at this point (in the ‘mind’) that all illogical possibilities are ignored, isolate or excluded from the eventual actuality of the universe, but not from G*D.

I think it’s important to recognise that G*D is inclusive of BOTH logical AND illogical possibilities, as well as BOTH love AND hate, and BOTH ‘good’ AND ‘evil’. This transcendent G*D is also immanent in my theory - which is not panENdeist, but understands this six-dimensional G*D as reality. The relationship with the world is ongoing, because the actual, measurable universe is simply a limited account of all possible information that IS G*D. The human capacity to relate to illogical possibilities and to all possibilities inclusive of ‘evil’ or ‘hate’, are crucial to the fitness function.

Quoting Possibility

It is at this point (in the ‘mind’) that all illogical possibilities are ignored, isolate or excluded from the eventual actuality of the universe, but not from G*D.

Of course, illogical concepts are possible in the dualistic state of Reality, but not in the unitary state of Ideality. Eternal LOGOS includes all logical possibilities, including negations, which offset to neutralize each other to Zero values. But space-time opens Pandora's Box to all kinds of illogical and irrational mentality.

Yes, the "fitness function" requires a choice (natural selection) between good & bad outcomes. All creatures make what seem to them at the time & place to be logical choices. But the veil of Time does not allow them to see the future consequences of those choices. So, they get the grade now (life or death) and the lesson later (ooops! bad choice). :cool:

Quoting Possibility

This transcendent G*D is also immanent in my theory - which is not panENdeist,

A non-personal deity who is both Transcendent and Immanent is, by definition, PanEnDeism.

Quoting Gnomon

Of course, illogical concepts are possible in the dualistic state of Reality, but not in the unitary state of Ideality. Eternal LOGOS includes all logical possibilities, including negations, which offset to neutralize each other to Zero values. But space-time opens Pandora's Box to all kinds of illogical and irrational mentality.

I don’t find this consistent with what you were saying here:

Quoting Gnomon

in my thesis, the next higher level above immanent EnFormAction is simply transcendent G*D.

and here:

Quoting Gnomon

Since the infinite potential of G*D is all possibilities, S/he is necessarily both Love & Hate, Good & Evil, Male & Female, Positive & Negative. Any comprehensive philosophical worldview, could be turned into a religion for the masses, only by choosing one side of the coin, and by taking its metaphors literally : "God is Love". Also, by turning the abstract deity into Santa Claus or Satan.

I’m a little confused by your use of ‘potential’ and ‘possible’, and how they relate to G*D, enformaction and spacetime. Because I don’t recognise mentality as being IN spacetime, so I’m not sure how this ‘illogical and irrational mentality’ suddenly becomes ‘possible’ in spacetime, when it’s not possible ‘in the unitary state of Ideality’.

Describing this unity as ‘ideal’, as ‘including all logical possibilities’, implies an exclusion of anything illogical or less than ideal, which is then NOT unitary. As much as I respect and admire your efforts in putting all of this down, I guess I’m just not quite seeing how it all fits together. It seems to me like your BOTH/AND principle lacks the unity you think it does.

Quoting Possibility

I’m a little confused by your use of ‘potential’ and ‘possible’, and how they relate to G*D, enformaction and spacetime. Because I don’t recognise mentality as being IN spacetime, so I’m not sure how this ‘illogical and irrational mentality’ suddenly becomes ‘possible’ in spacetime, when it’s not possible ‘in the unitary state of Ideality’.

In my worldview, Enfernity (eternity-infinity) is completely neutral, because it's all possibilities at once --- positive and negative cancel out. Nothing happens in Enfernity, because there's nowhere to go, and no time to get there. This notion is equivalent to the Greek concept of Chaos. Enfernity is "Ideal" in the sense of Plato's Forms as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas, that are not real.

Therefore, in order to convert an infinite pool of Possibility into finite Actuality, G*D must create a little pocket of space-time as a place for Change. And the tool for Change is EnFormAction, which can be imagined as the Will of God acting in the real world. So, in Enfernity, all things are possible, but nothing is actual. Yet the manifestation of EnFormAction transforms impotent Possibility into the world-changing Power of Energy, which ultimately changes (via evolution) mundane Matter into Mind, a spark of the divine.

This is all very esoteric, and hypothetical, so I wouldn't worry too much about getting it right. This is not presented as absolute Truth, it's just my way of thinking about the unknowable in terms of metaphors.


EnFormAction : analogous to Energy; the power to enform, to cause change; energy is just one form of Generic Information --- Mind is another.

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

Potential vs Possible : example --- Battery voltage is Potential electricity, not Actual electricity, because no energy is flowing. However, you could say that it's Possible for energy to flow, conditional upon a complete circuit. Enfernity is infinite Potential, but only in Space-Time is it Possible for that energy to flow. Space-Time is the complete circuit that allows the power of G*D to flow into the world and back again.
https://hinative.com/en-US/questions/2553858

Quoting Gnomon

Potential vs Possible : example --- Battery voltage is Potential electricity, not Actual electricity, because no energy is flowing. However, you could say that it's Possible for energy to flow, conditional upon a complete circuit. Enfernity is infinite Potential, but only in Space-Time is it Possible for that energy to flow. Space-Time is the complete circuit that allows the power of G*D to flow into the world and back again.

But it’s also possible for energy to flow between a potato and a lightbulb - conditional upon a complete circuit. Which means that it’s also possible for energy to flow between a rice grain and a lightbulb - conditional upon a complete circuit. The difference between these three possibilities is the potential, which can only be considered infinite AS the absolute possibility of G*D. Potentiality in itself is limited by the perceived value of awareness, connection and collaboration - the function of metaphysical will. I used to believe that potentiality was infinite, but a more recent understanding of science suggests that the energy in any physical system - including quantum systems - is finite, although it may be beyond our capacity to measure.

Quoting Gnomon

Therefore, in order to convert an infinite pool of Possibility into finite Actuality, G*D must create a little pocket of space-time as a place for Change. And the tool for Change is EnFormAction, which can be imagined as the Will of God acting in the real world. So, in Enfernity, all things are possible, but nothing is actual. Yet the manifestation of EnFormAction transforms impotent Possibility into the world-changing Power of Energy, which ultimately changes (via evolution) mundane Matter into Mind, a spark of the divine.

Spacetime is a function of interrelated potential (EnFormAction), which is a function of the metaphysical will, which is a function of pure relation, which is a function of absolute possibility. Possibility - G*D, the source of potentiality itself - requires nothing to manifest (not transform into) this potentiality, only the relation, the idea, that anything it could possibly be matters, even if it only ever remains just a possibility.

Possibility relates as this love or pure relation to manifest potentiality, which relates as metaphysical will (awareness, connection and collaboration) to manifest particles, which relate as interaction to manifest material information. This is the origin of the universe: the beginning of information, of everything that matters. From here, all matter in the universe mostly stabilises into a relatively isolated ‘object’, some changes in relation to an interaction, and even rarely integrates into a system of more complex interrelated information, evolving as one dimensional atoms, two dimensional molecules, three dimensional chemical reactions, four dimensional life, and eventually into the rare, five dimensional human organism: with maximum capacity to interrelate across all six levels of information complexity, including the pure relation of G*D.

Quoting Gnomon

This is all very esoteric, and hypothetical, so I wouldn't worry too much about getting it right. This is not presented as absolute Truth, it's just my way of thinking about the unknowable in terms of metaphors.

I understand that, and I’m not suggesting that you’re necessarily ‘wrong’ - only that I think we have more information than this. I guess I’m not willing to leave it as metaphor. I personally think the conceptualisation has more meat on it than that, and I think the ultimate aim is to develop it towards testable hypotheses.

Quoting Possibility

I guess I’m not willing to leave it as metaphor. I personally think the conceptualisation has more meat on it than that, and I think the ultimate aim is to develop it towards testable hypotheses.

Do you think Possibility (G*D) directly intervenes in Reality (Actuality) in such a way that scientists can observe and test those cause & effect changes empirically? Are you talking about a miracle, or something else with "meat" on it? :smile:

"According to physics, the most fundamental stuff of science is fields, not particles."

Sounds very untrue, but the topic is very interesting.

I know absolutely nothing about modern physics, and very little about acient physics. But I doubt that physics can change our modality of being, or can increase our undestanding about what is real or not. Reality is the most stable thing in our lives and since we are humans, there is a reality; and, in essence, the same and always the same.

The knowledge of what is real or not do not depend of science, but depends of human capacity to understand reality. Reality is an object of understanting, not a object of knowledge, according with Hegel. And that's is obvious, no?

Physics study some relations of reality, not reality itself.

Greentings.

Obs: if reality cannot be understood in itself, by our mind and by our judgment, it cannot be studied in his relations. It is more than obvious.

Reply to Marchesk

Notice how fields are different than old fashioned materialism.

If you look at equations of motion it is obvious there were never any particles.

The Standard Model lays out 13 fields which exist throughout the universe, oscillate and interact with one another to generate everything else.

I find it dubious to talk about 13 types of “meta-fields” when they all apparently converge and aggregate into only 3 fields: magnetic, electric, and gravitational, which then are sufficient to describe all objective phenomena that actually matters to us in the realm of our size scale of existence.

Quoting Gnomon

Do you think Possibility (G*D) directly intervenes in Reality (Actuality) in such a way that scientists can observe and test those cause & effect changes empirically? Are you talking about a miracle, or something else with "meat" on it? :smile:

No. ‘Cause and effect’ describes only relations in time - it doesn’t describe relations to 5D or 6D information. The way I see it, ‘actuality’ refers to an awareness of 4D information only. ‘Cause and effect’ re-imagined as a 5D relation refers to ‘metaphysical will’: the function that determines and initiates action from relations of potentiality, limited by awareness, connection and collaboration. Its relation to ‘cause and effect’ as we understand it is mathematically constructed as probability, which accounts for a degree of uncertainty in the prediction. But this structure is limited to quantitative values of potentiality only.

I think that possibility is always the source of any relation. I remember David Bentley Hart once described the ‘personal’ nature of ‘God’ as that “He knows, loves and relates to us all”. For me, the relationship works the other way: it’s not a matter of looking for improbable possibilities or ‘miracles’ as proof of direct intervention with actuality by some all-knowing G*D, but rather for us to map the relational structures of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration that might then increase the probability or potential of an event we now observe as possible. The actuality of improbable possibility, what seems to be a ‘miracle’, is simply an event whose obvious possibility we have yet to map in relation to our current map of potentiality. It’s proof of a capacity to increase the level of awareness, connection and collaboration in relation to possibility (G*D).

I guess the ‘meat’ I’m referring to is our capacity to map more and more of these anomalous structural relations between 5D and 6D information. The more of these relations we’re aware of and can map, the more accurately we can determine not just the probabilities or potential but the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to this potential, and then predict and plan actions that were once considered improbable, even ‘impossible’.

I think it won’t just be scientists who are going to have to rely more and more on probability calculations or potentiality maps as sufficient evidence - rather than insisting on reducing the information further to ‘accurate’ empirical data - if we want to understand all of the universe as interrelated events, let alone as potentiality. The testing in frontier science these days is less empirical or observational, and more mathematical, as the SUAC (Shut Up and Calculate) expression in reference to quantum physics implies.

When we learn to recognise the potentiality wave calculations of quantum physics and the qualitative potential we perceive in our experience of the world as interrelated information about this 5D aspect of the universe, then we can work towards a more effective conceptualisation of reality: as an evolving awareness, connection and collaboration with potentiality in relation to absolute possibility.

Quoting Possibility

The way I see it, ‘actuality’ refers to an awareness of 4D information only. ‘Cause and effect’ re-imagined as a 5D relation refers to ‘metaphysical will’:

I'm not well-informed on higher levels of abstract mathematics. Is this Fifth Dimension a conventional mathematical concept, or something you came up with yourself? You seem to think of 5D (probability??) as something like the Will of G*D, which sounds pretty far-out even for a String theorist. What's the Sixth Dimension : Divine Possibility? I'm grasping here, but my own ideas sound far-fetched to most people who are not familiar with the fringes of Science. I have referred to my own notion of EnFormAction metaphorically, as the Will of G*D operating in the world to cause Change.

5D : A five-dimensional space is a space with five dimensions. If interpreted physically, that is one more than the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time used in relativistic physics.[1] It is an abstraction which occurs frequently in mathematics, where it is a legitimate construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

Quoting Possibility

Its relation to ‘cause and effect’ as we understand it is mathematically constructed as probability,

Does that mean the Will of G*D is perfectly random, so "miraculous interventions" seem like accidents? I have a different explanation for why divine causation is not apparent in the world. The intentional goal of evolution is preset in the original Program, but the actual Path to the goal is heuristic, seeming like random trial & error. So, the only "miracle" is the creation of a real world (computer) to calculate the program in real-time.

Quoting Possibility

The actuality of improbable possibility, what seems to be a ‘miracle’, is simply an event whose obvious possibility we have yet to map in relation to our current map of potentiality.

Can you give me an example of a miracle that was inevitable, but seemed improbable because we are looking at the wrong map?

Quoting Possibility

I think it won’t just be scientists who are going to have to rely more and more on probability calculations or potentiality maps as sufficient evidence

If I experience an African elephant suddenly appearing in my living room, how can I calculate the probability of that occurrence to prove it was an act of G*D? How can non-mathematicians read a "potentiality map"? Will these maps draw direct lines between dimensions to show "as above, so below"? Will the Probability Map look like a Bell Curve, with a You-Are-Here arrow?

Quoting Possibility

and then predict and plan actions that were once considered improbable, even ‘impossible’.

They said it couldn't be done, but then I found this 5D map. Is that the kind of "meat" you're talking about? I'm having difficulty imagining all this within the limitations of my 4D mind.

Quoting Gnomon

I'm not well-informed on higher levels of abstract mathematics. Is this Fifth Dimension a conventional mathematical concept, or something you came up with yourself? You seem to think of 5D (probability??) as something like the Will of G*D, which sounds pretty far-out even for a String theorist. What's the Sixth Dimension : Divine Possibility? I'm grasping mere, but my own ideas sound far-fetched to most people who are not familiar with the fringes of Science. I have referred to my own notion of EnFormAction metaphorically, as the Will of G*D operating in the world to cause Change.

I wouldn’t refer to it as ‘the Will of G*D’, because a limited understanding of the two concepts doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the idea as I understand it. I use these terms here with you, because I think we are roughly on the same page as far as these concepts go. The common misunderstanding is that G*D is doing the ‘operating’ or ‘causing’ as something separate from ‘the world’ and from ‘change’, rather than the idea that G*D IS the possibility of operating, and the possibility of cause, and the possibility of the world, and the possibility of change. I guess I would more accurately translate this ‘Will of G*D operating in the world to cause change’ in my own understanding as ‘the faculty by which any possible action is determined and initiated through increased awareness, connection and collaboration’.

In Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’, he refers to the relativity of time as a four-dimensional relation between variables known as ‘events’. Rather than tacking another dimension onto the three that we’re familiar with (the 3+1 view that refers to objects in relation to a universal ‘time’), he describes the entire universe as consisting of four-dimensional events in relation to an observer - who is themselves a four-dimensional event within this universe. So a more accurate understanding of ‘time’ from a physics perspective that is inclusive of quantum mechanics is how these 4D events change in relation to each other: the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to each event.

This acknowledges the irreducibility of the universe to 3+1 dimensions - but it also opens up the possibility of 4+1 dimensions. We verify three-dimensionality by correlating the changes in relation to our four-dimensionality (our movement in time). All animals do this, regardless of their level of consciousness. Don’t we also verify this four-dimensionality by correlating changes in relation to our five-dimensionality (our awareness of value/potential)? So if we follow this pattern, it is also possible to describe the universe as consisting of five-dimensional potentialities in relation to an experiencing subject - who is themselves a five-dimensional potentiality. I find this surprisingly consistent with the human self-conscious experience of the world, as distinguished from animals lacking self-conscious capacity. Then a more accurate understanding of reality - that is inclusive not just of quantum mechanics but of morality, emotion, language and other value-related experiences - may be how these 5D potentialities change in relation to each other: the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to potential.

The 5D conceptual view of the universe explored by physicists looks precisely at attempting to unify the potentiality fields this thread tackles. IMHO, it fails because it lacks an understanding that enables it to be inclusive of both quantitative and qualitative potentiality. It’s a limitation of awareness, connection and collaboration that excludes unquantifiable information in the irreducibility of a potential 5D structure. Just as ‘time’ is not a unified extra-dimensional variable in relation to space, but rather an irreducible relation of variables that constitutes the overall structure of spacetime inclusive of all potential events, regardless of observation/measurement; so, too, potential or value is not a unified extra-dimensional variable in relation to spacetime, but rather an irreducible relation of variables that constitutes the overall structure of experience, inclusive of all possible experiencing subjects, regardless of awareness of potentiality.

Of course, it’s all speculation.

Quoting Possibility

Of course, it’s all speculation.

I have no problem with informed speculation. But some concrete or metaphorical examples, as requested in my previous post, would help me to understand your 5D/6D worldview, and your special interpretation of Possibility and Probability and Potentiality. Discussions of higher dimensions in terms of abstract mathematics gives me little personal experience to build a concept around. Einstein's notion of a 4D world is easy enough to imagine, by simply thinking of Time as a dimension. But I have no idea what the 11 dimensions of String Theory are referring to.

Quoting Possibility

The 5D conceptual view of the universe explored by physicists looks precisely at attempting to unify the potentiality fields this thread tackles.

Can you give me a link to a site that discusses the "5D conceptual view" in terms a layman can understand? Are "Potentiality fields" the same as Physical fields, like EMF, or something different?

Quoting Gnomon

Discussions of higher dimensions in terms of abstract mathematics gives me little personal experience to build a concept around. Einstein's notion of a 4D world is easy enough to imagine, by simply thinking of Time as a dimension. But I have no idea what the 11 dimensions of String Theory are referring to.

I don’t really follow String Theory, so the ‘folded’ dimensions it describes are not what I’m referring to here. My understanding of five and six dimensions is mostly intuitive, and it surprises me that I’ve yet to find an existing explanation that comes close. What follows is an attempt on my part, while trying to keep it brief. I guess I initially followed the ‘Flatland’ conceptualisation of dimensions, but I disagree with the ‘materialist’ assumption that each dimension must be imagined in relation to ‘space’. For me, dimensional existence is about awareness and information - not an imagined mathematical extension of space. Even though six-dimensional possibility is necessary for the existence of the universe, that existence begins at zero.

We think about the concept of zero dimensions in mathematics as a point in space, but technically a universe of zero dimension only exists in possibility. Any possibility in relation to a universe of zero dimension must come from beyond that ‘point’, necessitating a universe of at least one dimension, consisting of the possible point and its possible relation. A one-dimensional universe allows for a distinction between possible points - but what manifests is potentiality (not two actual points in space). As these points of possibility relate, they manifest a variety of distinctions as quantum particles, or potentiality. A universe of two dimensions then allows for distinctions to manifest between these one-dimensional particles - still not in space, though. As quantum particles relate, they manifest their differentiated potential in two-dimensional or atomic relations (actual matter in motion) - with the information of differentiated potential energy in quantum particles recognised in their relative distance from the nucleus.

It’s difficult not to think of this one dimensional ‘distance’ as located in space, but there is no awareness of direction, space or time. Nevertheless, we imagine this energy manifesting as a ‘Big Bang’, as particles suddenly differentiating themselves in all possible directions of an expanding spacetime, creating the material universe and the start of ‘time’. In the two-dimensional universe of atomic relations, however, it’s important to understand that quantum particles aren’t rotating around a nucleus in space, but are simply at a certain ‘distance’ in relation to that nucleus. It isn’t until some particle relations ‘collide’ with other atoms (a relation of outer electrons being equidistant from two or more nuclei) that energy creates action, and the shape of a three-dimensional universe starts to come into focus in relation to existence.

A universe of three dimensions allows for distinction between two-dimensional relations, manifesting molecular or chemical relations as these atomic relations interact: information consisting of direction or change in relation to distance/potential energy. Shapes, actions, noises, smells, textures and colours, etc manifest without much more than a vague awareness of them. A universe of four dimensions allows for distinction between three-dimensional relations, manifesting as molecular and/or chemical systems of differentiated complexity: information consisting of action, shape or chemical qualities in relation to distance/potential energy. Life develops at this level, directing energy into manifesting its own direction or change to alter its relative distance/potential energy - changing direction towards/away from chemical gradients, for instance.

You’ll notice that every relation always relates back to this one-dimensional, non-spatial ‘distance’, the differentiated potential energy from all possible relations in the universe. The error we make in materialist interpretations is in assuming this ‘distance’ is spatial or at least quantifiable, simply because that’s how we tend to perceive it manifested in relation to the universe. It is better described as ‘perceived potential’.

So if we continue in the same vein, a universe of five dimensions allows for distinction between four-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed and significant experiences: information consisting of differentiated ‘objects’ or environmental conditions with velocity, duration, space or complexity as well as texture, taste, colour, scent and sound in relation to this ‘perceived potential’. Life at this level of consciousness also directs energy into manifesting its own action, shape, sound, taste or scent (response) to alter its relative distance or perceived potential - initiating movement towards/away from senses, shapes or actions, attacking, evading, or directing energy towards effecting a particular sensory effect, shape or action in the world.

The way I see it, a universe of six dimensions allows for distinction between five-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed conceptual systems or ‘meaning’: information consisting of differentiated qualitative and quantitative experiences in relation to distance or perceived potential. Life at this human level directs energy into manifesting its own experiences to alter its relative distance or perceived potential - initiating causal conditions that contribute to or change particular events, or directing collaborative energy in anticipation of achieving or avoiding objects or environmental conditions.

While I don’t believe there is any limitation to possibility (when we recognise the distinction between possibility and potentiality), I don’t think we could ever be certain that a seventh (or any subsequent) dimension does not exist, and acting as if it does (even if we simply refer to it as G*D) could help to broaden our understanding of this sixth dimension. We can attempt to unify an overall structure of possible ‘meaning’ by exploring how our own conceptual systems in relation to distance or perceived potential (that we manifest in meaningful expression) relate to differentiated meaning that others express. We can also direct energy into changing our conceptual systems in order to alter the relative distance or perceived potential in how we relate at every other level, or even change how we perceive this distance or potential (through imagination, for instance) in order to alter our conceptual systems. I think we do this anyway, we’re just unaware of how these efforts help create a sense of relative meaning or purpose.

Quoting Possibility

Any possibility in relation to a universe of zero dimension must come from beyond that ‘point’, necessitating a universe of at least one dimension, consisting of the possible point and its possible relation.

This is not a necessary conclusion. There could be a dimensionless reality, actuality which validates the dimensionless possibilities which has relations not describable in terms of dimension. This is what dualism gives us, the basis for a dimensionless reality, the principles required to describe actual existence with principles not derived from spatial representations (dimension).

Quoting Possibility

n the two-dimensional universe of atomic relations, however, it’s important to understand that quantum particles aren’t rotating around a nucleus in space, but are simply at a certain ‘distance’ in relation to that nucleus.

These locations, and 'distances' are not actual distances, they are possible. So this dimensional (spatial) representation is inadequate because it cannot provide an actual spatial representation, only possible locations. For an actual representation we need to turn to the dimensionless actuality (granted to us by dualism) and determine the actuality which underlies the dimensional representation of possibilities.

Quoting Possibility

The error we make in materialist interpretations is in assuming this ‘distance’ is spatial or at least quantifiable, simply because that’s how we tend to perceive it manifested in relation to the universe. It is better described as ‘perceived potential’.

Yes, the monist materialism presents us with this problem; we cannot understand any reality in terms other than spatial. That is why we must accept the precepts granted by dualism, and move toward recognizing the actuality which exists on the other side of the "perceived potential", as a true non-spatial existence.

Quoting Possibility

So if we continue in the same vein, a universe of five dimensions allows for distinction between four-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed and significant experiences: information consisting of differentiated ‘objects’ or environmental conditions with velocity, duration, space or complexity as well as texture, taste, colour, scent and sound in relation to this ‘perceived potential’.

This is a move in the wrong direction though. You have described the non-spatial, zero dimensional, then you move to represent this as a fifth dimension. How is that consistent? Instead of proposing that we represent the non-dimensional as it is described, as non-spatial, you apply a spatial principle "dimension", and try to represent it that way, as a fifth dimension.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is not a necessary conclusion. There could be a dimensionless reality, actuality which validates the dimensionless possibilities which has relations not describable in terms of dimension. This is what dualism gives us, the basis for a dimensionless reality, the principles required to describe actual existence with principles not derived from spatial representations (dimension).

Dimensions are not necessarily ‘spatial’ representations, but are defined as aspects of reality, of which actuality only accounts for four, at best. So I’m not sure what you think dualism answers here, except to reduce reality to only two aspects, with no viable explanation for how they interact. What you refer to as ‘dimensionless’ reality is, for me, at least two non-spatial aspects of reality that extend beyond what you refer to as ‘actuality’.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

These locations, and 'distances' are not actual distances, they are possible. So this dimensional (spatial) representation is inadequate because it cannot provide an actual spatial representation, only possible locations. For an actual representation we need to turn to the dimensionless actuality (granted to us by dualism) and determine the actuality which underlies the dimensional representation of possibilities.

No, they’re potential distances - I never said they were actual. There is no actual representation of an electron - it’s a quantum particle. There is only relative ‘distance’ from the nucleus (represented as a calculation of potential energy) or the probability wave calculation that represents its potential two-dimensional location relative to the nucleus: either relative velocity (direction in relation to potential energy) or relative position (direction in relation to distance). I have a feeling we’re referring to the same thing here, though.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the monist materialism presents us with this problem; we cannot understand any reality in terms other than spatial. That is why we must accept the precepts granted by dualism, and move toward recognizing the actuality which exists on the other side of the "perceived potential", as a true non-spatial existence.

No, I don’t believe we must accept dualism, although I agree that monist materialism IS problematic.

‘Dimension’ is not a spatial representation but an aspect of reality. Each aspect is relational, regardless whether it pertains to our understanding of three-dimensional ‘space’ or not, and what you call ‘non-spatial existence’ refers to not one but two of six aspects of reality. The first aspect is possible awareness or existence, the second is relative distance or potential energy; the third is relative shape, action or chemical qualities; and the fourth is relative space, velocity, duration, complexity or sensory qualities. The fifth aspect of reality is the relative perception of value, significance or potentiality, including ‘qualia’ and conceptual relations. And the sixth aspect of reality is pure relation, meaning or possibility.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is a move in the wrong direction though. You have described the non-spatial, zero dimensional, then you move to represent this as a fifth dimension. How is that consistent? Instead of proposing that we represent the non-dimensional as it is described, as non-spatial, you apply a spatial principle "dimension", and try to represent it that way, as a fifth dimension.

You misunderstand me, and hopefully my explanations above have clarified my position a bit more. Your misunderstanding seems to come from this dualist assumption that there are only two aspects of reality: spatial/non-spatial, dimensional/dimensionless, actual/potential - as well as defining ‘dimension’ as necessarily spatial. I have used ‘aspect’ in place of ‘dimension’ below, in the hope of clarifying my argument.

The terms ‘potential/potentiality’ and ‘possible/possibility’ demonstrate a necessarily ‘circular’ structure to these six relational aspects of reality, from which the universe evolved. The first aspect of reality - possible awareness and existence - is not the understanding, awareness or knowledge of what possibility IS. It’s only the possibility of existence. The sixth aspect refers to an awareness of possibility itself. Likewise the second aspect is not an understanding, awareness or knowledge of what potential energy is. That’s just its potential for existence. The fifth aspect of reality is an awareness of this potential in the world around us.

Quoting Possibility

Dimensions are not necessarily ‘spatial’ representations, but are defined as aspects of reality, of which actuality only accounts for four, at best. So I’m not sure what you think dualism answers here, except to reduce reality to only two aspects, with no viable explanation for how they interact. What you refer to as ‘dimensionless’ reality is, for me, at least two non-spatial aspects of reality that extend beyond what you refer to as ‘actuality’.

Right, the more we can reduce the need for a huge multitude of aspects of reality, in our descriptions, the less complicated and easier it is to understand. Dualism actually provides a comprehensive explanation of how the two aspects interact, so that assertion, that dualism has no viable explanation for how the two interact is just a monist straw man. You'll notice that Plato introduced a third factor with his "tripartite soul", to account for interaction. The third thing is not really a distinct aspect though, it is the mixing, or interacting of the two aspects, so "dualism" remains as the appropriate term.

So, for example what's the point to positing "at least two non-spatial aspects of reality"? If the spatial aspect of reality is described as three dimensional, this does not mean that there are three distinct aspects of spatial existence. it's just how we draw things, as three dimensional. We're much further along, in our efforts toward understanding if we simply look at spatial existence as one aspect of reality, and non-spatial as another.

Quoting Possibility

The first aspect is possible awareness or existence, the second is relative distance or potential energy; the third is relative shape, action or chemical qualities; and the fourth is relative space, velocity, duration, complexity or sensory qualities. The fifth aspect of reality is the relative perception of value, significance or potentiality, including ‘qualia’ and conceptual relations. And the sixth aspect of reality is pure relation, meaning or possibility.

See here for instance, why don't you combine #2 with #4? I see no reason to separate "relative distance" from "relative space". And, since #6 is "pure relation", why not class all the other "relatives", #2, #3, #4, and #5, in with #6. This simplifies things, leaving us with the possibility of awareness #1, and relations #6. Everything can be reduced to these two categories.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I agree that understanding the universe as awareness and relation is ideal, but the fact is that the universe consists of relations and awareness that are limited to certain levels. Awareness of what level these relations are at helps us to make the most of our connections and collaboration.

I can relate to an acorn and be aware of its diverse possibilities, but I can’t force that acorn to relate to much more than the relative shape, action and chemical qualities of its interaction with the world, let alone be aware of much more than a vague distinction of some kind of potential as it interacts. I can’t ever expect it to be aware of its own potentiality to become food or oak tree - but I am aware of my own potential to reduce its possibility through awareness, connection and collaboration with others in relation to the acorn as a particular level of awareness and relations.

My six-dimensional ‘structure’ follows on from Rovelli’s description of the universe as interrelated events: a four-dimensional structure that does away with the 3+1 understanding of spacetime which continues to hamstring much of modern physics. It’s still useful at times to interact with the world according to classical physics, but it’s important to acknowledge that it isn’t as accurate as we once thought.

Recognising this irreducibility of reality also enables us to more accurately understand the origin of space, life and consciousness as they have evolved in the universe. Six-dimensional relation refers to a highly complex relational ‘structure’ in the conceptual sense. I find it more comprehensive to refer to this structure in terms of relations evolving at various dimensional levels, especially when trying to understand how abiogenesis or consciousness evolved. Until we can all conceptualise a relational structure of six-dimensional complexity, it make sense to ‘scaffold’ this complexity of reality in a way that is manageable as well as navigable. I find dual aspect reality too simplified to illustrate how neatly it all evolves and continually interrelates. It lacks a unifying navigability - but that’s just my understanding of it.