Quantum Physics and Philosophy
I find this to be an odd relationship. I get that much of it is rather unintuitive to our normal modes of processing things, and the weirdness comes into play when you see how it doesn't apply to macro level processes. It's mostly a lot of high level math and the interpretations are as varied as they are weird, yet every now and then I see someone trying to apply the principles or certain interpretations to philosophy such as this:
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-identify-with-Solipsism/answer/Bert-Leysath?ch=10&share=2e49139e&srid=uHpSfZ
To some even suggesting that Quantum physics is proof that nothing exists or is real (it doesn't but any interpretation of it can say what you want it to say). Considering how weird it is, and how not even the people who do it fully understand what is going on do you think there is a place for philosophy in this or should we just leave well enough alone.
P.S: I had to laugh at the use of superposition in the link as it's not even close to what it means in quantum physics.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-identify-with-Solipsism/answer/Bert-Leysath?ch=10&share=2e49139e&srid=uHpSfZ
To some even suggesting that Quantum physics is proof that nothing exists or is real (it doesn't but any interpretation of it can say what you want it to say). Considering how weird it is, and how not even the people who do it fully understand what is going on do you think there is a place for philosophy in this or should we just leave well enough alone.
P.S: I had to laugh at the use of superposition in the link as it's not even close to what it means in quantum physics.
Comments (102)
I think philosophy is that branch of thinking, which connects reality to knowledge, but supported by less evidence than scientific knowledge.
In this sense, philosophy has no business in meddling in quantum theory. Quantum theory is a science, because it makes predicive results possible. Philosophy is really hard pressed to make even remotely accurate predictions.
The difference between quantum theory and philosophy is the same difference as between any branch of science and philosophy.
That quantum theory is weird, and so is philosophy, is not enough to establish strong connections or identicality. It's like the numbers pulled in lottery draws are completely random, therefore a completely random selection of numbers must win the first prize every time. But much like that is based on false logic, so is the notion that weirdness is an indication of similarity.
A couple of things I would say to this:
1. Many fields of human knowledge started out as philosophy, then became an -ology or -omy once they firmed up into making testable predictions. I'm only saying this because I think it's a bit unfair when people imply philosophy has never contributed anything (which you haven't said, but might be alluding to).
2. I'm fine with philosophers leaving science alone as soon as scientists leave philosophy alone.
A number of high-profile astrophysicists, neuroscientists etc make plenty of philosophical claims, and worse, they are often very dismissive of philosophers. So it's a case of "Don't listen to philosophers, it's all nonsense. Now, listen to my philosophical claims..."
Furthermore, these kinds of claims are often easily-debunked, because being a great theoretical physicist doesn't automatically mean that you are better at philosophical reasoning than the next man.
Why would quantum mysticism be better addressed by trained physicists than by trained mystics?
There is a good reason why philosophers are intrigued by Quantum Theory : Theory, per se, is informed metaphysical speculation, as opposed to practical physical research. And Metaphysics is the residue of ancient Philosophy that was left behind by Materialistic Science for "feckless" philosophers to play with. For several centuries, Materialism was the dominant worldview for scientists. But after quantum queerness emerged from slicing atoms into sub-atomic "particles", the foundation of Atomism/Materialism as a worldview was called into question.
Even so, most quantum physicists continue to "interpret" photons as-if they are petite balls of solid stuff. But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. This means that they are studied in terms of Metaphysics, rather than of material Physics. And that opens the door to philosophical speculation, which would never have been taken seriously before spooky Quantum Nature became the dominant theory of Reality. :smile:
Metaphysics :
[i]1. 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.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.[/i]
(i.e material reality)
By interacting with the Higgs Field, trained mystics would become weighty and pretentious. But I could be wrong. There's a lot of uncertainty here. :chin:
You're awfully certain that there is such a thing. I always thought materialism is something practiced with balls and sticks or by kicking big rocks. Or by babies gnawing on their big toes. It's the science part that I don't get.
Physicists are physicalists which is quite different than materialism in spite of what people pretend to. Physics is a mathematical symbolic science. What's the symbol for a material?
That sounds like the history of philosophy.
Quoting Gnomon
They absolutely do not.
Quoting Darkneos
Yeah this is my bugbear too. It's used as a propaganda tool by the untrained for the untrained to forward whatever unscientific world view the former feel obliged to peddle.
I was in Tanzania for a few months and was housed with this other guy from England. I asked him what he did and he said he was a personal trainer, but that he was much more than that. I asked him how so and he replied he used quantum theory. He explained to me that everything in the universe is either positive or negative (fine), and that when you bring positive and negative together it created energy (I guess he was thinking of matter-antimatter annihilation?), that energy equated to love, and that's quantum theory. He asked me what I did and I told him I was doing a PhD in quantum theory and left it at that. That guy hated my guts for the whole of his stay after that, which I rather enjoyed.
Nothing excites a charlatan more than the idea of something being unknowable.
Anyway, I do think there's a vital place for philosophy in all science. The ramifications of QM are perfectly reasonable philosophical problems, since they lie outside of empiricism and therefore outside of science's purview... for now, at least. I think the important thing is to not confuse interpretation with empirically-verified theory. For instance, non-determinists and incompatibilists seem to like QM a lot because of the lack of distinction between quantum theory and non-deterministic interpretations thereof.
Quoting Gnomon
This is still debated but the answer seems to be no, they are made of fields. They are NOT studied in metaphysics and are still in the realm of material physics. It's also worth noting that Quantum physics breaks down at particles above a certain size. Ergo it doesn't explain anything about our day to day lives and the principles don't apply there. That still doesn't stop idiots from trying to suggest it does.
As much as those who study Metaphysics WANT to believe that QM opens that door, they will be sorry to see it does not. QM is high level math and the varied interpretations are just attempts to explain what the math is saying, it's more for the public to be honest. But if you have no degree in the subject you will not understand what they are getting at. Which is how misinformation on the topic proliferates. As you can see in the link we get a lot of people either using the terms incorrectly to make their point or just outright saying that quantum physics says X when it doesn't in the slightest. Though to correct the misinformation would require teaching the public the subject and that is not as attractive as the interpretations.
"Trained mystics" is the equivalent of saying you're a level 110 Warlock in World of Warcraft.
Right, and these are very good examples of my point that concepts stop being called "philosophy" when they start making testable predictions.
But in terms of scientists being amateur philosophers I also meant it in a more negative way; of certain high-profile scientists taking philosophical positions that are nothing to do with their background (e.g. an astrophysicist talking about consciousness) and being quite dismissive of philosophical discussion on said topic (so often they are not even aware of the counter-arguments to their position).
M, m. It denotes mass. There is no mass without material or matter.
I get your point, I am just answering your question, without any further or ulterior or hidden or implied opinion on your post.
What? I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I was just clarifying one of my points.
Sure, I'm sure, because I read it in Wikipedia. :nerd:
Scientific Materialism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientistic_materialism
Materialism : [i]Philosophy
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.[/i]
They still call it the Wave Function "of a particle". So, it seems that most physicists still treat holistic quantum level wave functions as-if they are tiny balls of stuff.
That's what I said. A "field" is an abstract mathematical definition, not a physical object in the traditional sense. A "model" is an abstraction from physical reality, and can be studied only mathematically, not physically. :nerd:
Quantum Field Theory : QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Quasiparticle : emergent phenomena that occur when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as if it contained different weakly interacting particles in vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
Quasi- : seemingly; apparently but not really.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
A particle is any quantised phenomenon. A phonon -- a quantised vibration -- is a pseudo-particle, for instance, because it behaves like a particle even though it is a collective behaviour. By "particle", physicists do not mean a tiny ball, just a quantised excitation of a field. All particles are described as waves.
If the thing studied is not physical, what is it if not meta-physical? :smile:
Non-physical : not tangible or concrete.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Metaphysical : highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.
philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
They may be described mathematically as waves, but they are portrayed graphically as balls. That's because the human mind can only imagine metaphysical abstractions as symbolic concrete images. It's a semantic difference, but applicable to this topic. Can you imagine the mathematical number "four" as a physical object? No, because it's a metaphysical object, for which we have names, but no realistic images. :joke:
Note: One of the numbers in the Schrödinger equation is imaginary.
OK. But it's still Metaphysics. :cool:
thanks.
Gnomon, you remind me of the adage, "if someone ascribes an attribute to a system that is not in that system, the person ascribing is most likely very far from understanding that system."
Metaphysics is something I don't understand. I don't even have a remotely useful concept of the concept. So I leave it like that. I don't go comparing metaphysics to thought, to consciousness, to QM, to miracles, because I don't have a working concept of what metaphysics is.
I think those who don't quite have even a rudimentary knowledge of QM or even of classical phyisics, ought not to take ownership of physics, and declare how QM is an explanation to non-phyisics phenonmena.
One of the numbers in the Schrödinger equation is imaginary.
If I may interject with an elementary understanding, the necessity of mathematically complex representations with regards to traditional wavefunctions is born out of their dichotomous formulation (ie. a real and complex phase and amplitude respectively), as opposed to a philosophical construction. Classical mechanics dictate one-dimensional representations, which are wholly or partially insufficient in describing quantum states. The mathematical underpinnings of QM, apart from a few rarefied experimental instances, are not observable, thus rendering their complexity/imaginary components arbitrary in and of themselves. When both components are considered universally, their definitive result will necessarily be real and descriptive of a physical state. If I interpret your suggestion correctly, the metaphysics of Schrodinger's equations are, if existent, not attributable to their imaginary parts.
Here's an outline I've used to build my comprehension of the above, in confirmation of my inklings.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Quantum_Mechanics/Book%3A_Introductory_Quantum_Mechanics_(Fitzpatrick)/02%3A_Wave-Particle_Duality/2.03%3A_Representation_of_Waves_via_Complex_Functions
In my experience, they're usually portrayed graphically as directed lines. It is understood this is not a literal pictorial representation, merely a convenient shorthand for counting probabilities.
Also don't cite equations if you don't understand the math behind it.
Again no. Fields are not mathematical abstract definitions, they can essentially be called energy for lack of a better term. The models can be studied physically. All these fields are in fact made up of particles themselves.
Again you aren't a physicist so your citations don't matter on the subject. I've spoken to those who do know this but they could only give the short answers to it without teaching me.
GMBA
I know that was a put-down. But, are you seriously implying that -- in your professional opinion -- Quantum phenomena do not belong in the Metaphysical "system". Apparently, you think I'm talking about Mysticism. But I'm simply following the lead of some professional Physicists and Information Theorists. So, I would agree that Quantum Fields do not belong in the Mystical system, But it does fall into the category of pure theoretical Mathematics, which is metaphysical, in the Aristotelian sense.
On a philosophical forum, you should "understand" Metaphysics, because it's the only part of ancient philosophy that has been left by "hard" empirical Scientists to feckless Philosophers, and to "soft" theoretical Physicists, such as Einstein. Even the big "E" couldn't reconcile his post-classical theories with the spooky empty-space-warping phenomenon of gravity.
Maybe the definition below will help you to understand Meta-Physics as Aristotle intended, not as "idle speculation" -- as attributed by some hard-nosed modern Materialists. Note the distinction between empirical "perception" and theoretical "conception". If you are thinking in terms of "classical physics", you are behind the eight-ball -- which is actually a hypothetical "wave" in a non-fluid immaterial field. :joke:
The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics : Quantum mechanics, like any physical theory, comes equipped with many metaphysical assumptions and implications. The line between metaphysics and physics is often blurry, but as a rough guide, one can think of a theory's metaphysics as those foundational assumptions made in its interpretation that are not usually directly tested in experiment.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_119
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-015-9344-1
Difference Between Metaphysics & Quantum Physics : [i]Is quantum physics a metaphysics?
Although metaphysics and quantum physics deal with the scholarly examination of the surrounding world, the two approach the subject from two different disciplines, namely philosophy for metaphysics and hard science for quantum physics.[/i]
https://sciencing.com/use-plancks-constant-2378.html
Note : how "hard" is an invisible intangible Field that only exists in the imagination of a theoretical physicist?
Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Is Math Metaphysical? : http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527
If the number "four" is not a Metaphysical Object, does that mean it's a Physical object? If so, what is it's Being, Existence, and Reality? Are "concepts" Real or Ideal? Is Mathematics "fundamental" or trivial? :smile:
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental questions, including the nature of concepts like being, existence, and reality.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Category:Concepts_in_metaphysics
Note :not exploring mystical questions
It's not just graphically. There are multiple models of the atom, and while there is a clear "best", most accurate model, it's nonetheless often useful to use one of the simpler, less accurate models.
e.g. It's a common misconception that teaching high school kids a planetary-ish model of the atom is wrong. When in fact, it's no more wrong than depicting the entire atom as a single sphere when teaching about the states of matter is wrong (or indeed, all high school chemistry). It's a useful abstraction.
And there is some relevance to my tangent here, in that modern physicists don't focus too much on metaphysical claims of what something "really" is. They make models, and if that model makes good predictions and inferences, that's awesome, but they usually avoid making the claim that the representations in that model are the real and final ones.
Yes. I'm aware that most physicists don't do metaphysics. But philosophers do. And this is a philosophical forum, is it not?. So, why not consider Metaphysical interpretations of Quantum Theory? Classical physics was turned upside-down by quantum queerness. That's because the substructure of reality was no longer viewed as solid little balls of stuff. The foundations of Reality are now described as invisible formless Fields of abstract intangible mathematical Information. As noted in my post above, those waving fields of nothingness cannot be seen in microscopes, but only in the form of abstract equations.
So, if physicists now think of particles as continuous waves in "fields" (wholes), why do some on this forum insist on referring to waves-in-an-empty-ocean as "parts" (particles)? A Field is sometimes defined as a "physical quantity", but it's actually a Quality, quantified in terms of metaphysical numbers (what color is four?). Quantum phenomena such as Entanglement are Holistic, not particularistic. I suspect that even analytical physicists are human, and can't relate realistically to amorphous generalities. Besides, they need measurable specifics (countable things) in order to do their math.
If philosophers, including us amateurs, are not allowed to focus on "metaphysical claims", what's left for us to argue about : second principles? :cool:
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.
Ontology : the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
Ontic : relating to entities and the facts about them; relating to real as opposed to phenomenal existence.
Note : Ontic investigations ask "what something really is". Particles are "phenomenal" (appearances), while Fields are "noumenal" (fundamental). Perhaps, both are "Real", but viewed from different perspectives.
According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm
IMO Metaphysics is the most useless branch of philosophy.
I'm not proposing that philosophers start meddling in Physics, but that they stick to their specialty : Metaphysics. Besides, if it's "nothing, why are we still debating Metaphysics after all these millennia? Is it possible that there is more to reality than Physics? What does modern philosophy do, if not Meta-physics? If it's useless, why are you posting on a Philosophy forum, instead of a Physics forum? Apparently, some philosophers on this forum are motivated by Physics Envy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy
Could it be because Physics, after 5 centuries, still has not found the key relationship between Mind & Matter, or between Quantitative Substance & Qualitative Attributes, or between the Potentiality of Invisible fields & the Actuality of tangible objects? Could it be because Physics has atomized the world down to sub-atomic "particles" that are described as a "virtual" essence or simulation? Maybe it's because Physics has found that the foundation of the world is Mathematical instead of Material? Or that Gravity is no longer a physical Force, but a metaphysical mathematical "curvature" of empty space? If Quantum Physics, only statistically real, is not downright "spooky", as Einstein called it, it is literally Meta-Physical : beyond the scope of classical Physics. Yet, it remains within the scope of modern Philosophy. :nerd:
Metaphysics : Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Virtual :
[i]1.The adjective "virtual" is used to describe something that exists in essence but not in actuality.
2. Computer science : a simulation of reality.
3. Physics : a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle.[/i]
Physics : relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Note : Quantum Physics is neither concrete, nor perceivable by the five senses. It is conceivable only in the Mind, and describable only in mathematical language.
Does Science Need Metaphysics? : Science is anti-metaphysical. It doesn't care about the ultimate nature of what it is observing and measuring. Its models, its particles, forces, and fields, are not models of fundamental reality. They are useful abstractions that provide a common language for discussing relationships and measurements nothing more.
https://broadspeculations.com/2020/04/05/does-science-need-metaphysics/
[i]"Where our scientific knowledge is insufficient and where theological answers fail to compel
and convince us, philosophy remains a useful endeavor."[/i]
___Ethan Siegel, astrophysicist,
Mind does not exist, neuroscience killed dualism there. Qualia from what I have heard is a meaningless attribute that caries no real worth.
Physics has not found that the foundation of the world is mathematical, it's still material just not in the way we thought it was. But it literally does not impact our day to day, and metaphysics even less so. Gravity is still a physical force. It's not Meta-Physical, it's not beyond the scope of classical physics, that's like calling biology that. It is a branch than deals with phenomenon at the quantum level of particles. Classical physics still works at our level but not quantum physics.
I know you WANT metaphysics to be useful but it's not. Quantum physics is not even in the same league as metaphysics so it's fallacious to think there can be an association between the two.
The reason we are still debating the same metaphysics as in the beginning is because there is no solution to metaphysical questions. It just boils down to what people want to believe and that's it. None of your definitions change any of that.
Quoting jgill
This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Consciousness does not play a role in QM. The term "observation" just means any sort of interaction with the system, not a conscious agent.
This is just the physicist's way of saying we know there's some energy there but we don't know what form it has.
I'm thinking in terms of pure mathematics. Excitation in the complex vector field. I'm wondering how that might be interpreted, devoid of physics. (I'm sure someone will tell me :roll: )
Quoting Darkneos
I'm speaking of envisioning these three things as a single entity, not necessarily associated with QM. Probably beyond metaphysics. Like visualizing four dimensions.
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's difficult to have a dialog with a mindless zombie. :joke:
If you are a practicing Physicist, Chemist, or Biologist, you may have no practical need for Qualia, or Mind. If you are non-empirical Psychiatrist or Sociologist, you do need the concept of "Qualia", although you might call it by a different name. If you are any of the above though, why are you posting on a worthless Philosophy forum? Do you enjoy wasting your time on meaningless drivel? Or, do you "feel" duty-bound to set us errant "Mystics" straight?
For the record, I am not a Mystic in any sense. I have no Religion, and belong to no Cult. I don't believe in spooky ghosts or disembodied spirits, or mindless zombies. But I do believe that the immaterial Mind is the Function of the material Brain. It's what brains do. Brain functions are defined in terms of Qualia : what it feels-like to experience the world. If the Mind does not exist, then Brains are useless lumps of meat. I assume that you have a Brain, but based on your comments, I'll have to take you at your word, that you don't have a Mind. :cool:
Mind : the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as non-cognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct. ___Wikipedia
Note : is this what you believe does not exist? Or is the spiritual Soul that you deny? If the latter, I'd have to agree with you. In place of the ancient notion of "Soul", I prefer the concept of "Self-image", which exists as an immaterial pattern of neural activity. What substance are Faculties & Functions made of? In what sense do such non-entities exist?
Faculty : A faculty refers to any of your mental or physical abilities. If you lose your faculties, you are powerless.
Function :
[i]1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
2. Function, in mathematics, an expression, rule, or law that defines a relationship between one variable (the independent variable) and another variable (the dependent variable).[/i]
There's no metaphysical mystery to such immaterial notions : they are all imaginary. :wink:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." ___Einstein
Imagination : the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.
PS__"not present to the senses" = non-empirical; theoretical; meta-physical
So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing?
Sorry. I don't understand the question. Unless you are inadvertently referring to my Enformationism hypothesis. From that perspective, "waves, particles, fields" are various forms of fundamental Information : the power to enform; to create and to change. Moreover, everything in the natural world is a specific form of that general enforming power -- which you may be more familiar with in the form of Energy : the power to cause change.
For the science behind that theory, you can refer to the website & blog. Mental Information is indeed imaginary : images & meanings created by the brain in the form of abstract mental patterns. But physical Information is what we call Matter : concrete enformed stuff. These notions may sound far-out, but they are integral to the cutting-edge science of Information Theory. :nerd:
Information Realism : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. I call that creative energy : EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Information :
[i]* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of "aboutness" , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note : Regarding the existence of imaginary things : Photons are the closest to bits of physical energy we know of. But on Quora, someone asked : "do photons actually exist?', and a physicist replied :
"Well, on the one hand, photons most certainly produce observable effects, and that would seem to indicate that they exist. . . . On the other hand, photons cannot be associated with certain fundamental properties that we would expect any physically existing object to possess."
https://www.quora.com/Do-photons-actually-exist/answer/Armin-Nikkhah-Shirazi?ch=99&share=421fcb4e&srid=ozk3M
Think of this as a secular counterpart to The Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - all are one and there may be Christian mystics who can envision the three as one imaginary entity. :chin:
Not to mention the article you linked is full of errors in reasoning, not to mention that the author of the article does not have a degree in physics. He tries to peddle idealism as truth when it was debunked long ago and tries to use "mind" as a thing that exists when neuroscience has debunked it. Also mindless does not mean zombie.
Seriously, not sure how Scientific American greenlit that article.
Quoting jgill
Some scientists and philosophers think that "The Holy Trinity" of quantum phenomena are reducible to pure Mathematics. And some think that Mathematics is Metaphysics. Personally, I think that they all boil down to Ideal Platonic Information (Forms). That is a Metaphysical concept, but not necessarily a Mystical notion. Regarding Metaphysics, I am like the Argentine writer, Jorge Luis Borges : "Attracted by metaphysics, but accepting no system as true . . ." :smile:
"Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
Mathematical Metaphysics : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
Waves, Particles and Fields : https://www.amazon.com/Waves-Particles-Fields-Introducing-Quantum/dp/0367198789
Ha! I could match your snarky remark with : "your posts are like someone who doesn't understand Philosophy . . ." But I won't. :joke:
Sorry Darkness. I don't believe in extreme philosophical Solipsism, as you imply. But then, Descartes' radical skepticism began from that starting position. He concluded that all else is uncertain to some degree. So, the point of his philosophy was to determine -- via reasoning from that foundation of certainty -- what was believable. Once underway though, most philosophers abandon that radical attitude and adopt a more pragmatic view.
Apparently, from previous comments, you doubt that even You have a Mind! But, you seem to act as-if you are certain of your own mental/brain powers -- whatever you call them. Do you believe that other people have similar faculties? On what empirical basis? Do you know anything for sure, outside the direct experience of your own mind/brain/senses? On what empirical basis? Have you directly experienced all the "facts" of Science, or do you accept the testimony of those who have personal (solipsistic) experience with the pertinent experiments?
Do you believe that a few of the posters on this forum have reasoning abilities equivalent to your own? Are you sure of that? Or is it just an inference based on your own solipsistic experience? Speaking of Empiricism, do you believe in the "Uncertainty Principle" of the Quantum foundation of Reality? :joke:
Solipsism : Solipsism, in philosophy, an extreme form of subjective idealism that denies that the human mind has any valid ground for believing in the existence of anything but itself.
Uncertainty Principle : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Note -- Does the "Observer Effect" imply Solipsism?
The Philosophical Uncertainty Principle : The PUP establishes that: “It is impossible to know if some observation, measure or perception corresponds in fact to reality”.
http://www.genismo.com/englishtext_07.htm
Of Superposition and Solipsism : https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/superposition-and-solipsism-survey-quantum-mechanical-approaches-addressing-%E2%80%9C-hard-problem%E2%80%9D
Radical Empiricism : a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism
I'm not trying to shut the conversation down, I was replying specifically to posts about what physicists say and how physics is taught.
Quoting Gnomon
(Emphasis added)
I can't parse this question. Seems you are saying both groups are aware of wave particle duality but tend to have a preferred description. Even assuming you're right about that...I don't see any conflict or inconsistency.
That's OK. I get the "Physics is Truth" treatment a lot, when I discuss Metaphysical topics. I'm familiar with the Materialist worldview of most Physicists. And that's OK, as long as they are doing Empirical Science. But when physicists cross-over into Metaphysics, they become speculative Philosophers.
For example, Einstein's early theories of "curved space" sounded like nonsense. But eventually, physicists were forced by the evidence to accept the weird notion of space-time imagined metaphorically as an immaterial "fabric". Idealistic Metaphysics is necessarily discussed in metaphors & analogies of "real" (i.e. concrete) objects. That's because abstract notions have no matter for the 5 senses to relate to. Only the sixth sense of Reason can imagine such "unreal" (i.e. metaphysical) things as ideas & concepts.
Einstein's Metaphysics : A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-albert-einstein.htm
Fabric of Space-Time : The mass has got to curve spacetime, but it isn't actually a fabric: it's simply the nothingness that makes up the empty Universe itself.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/?sh=5c47c36097fc
Quoting Mijin
Don't worry about it. The remark was directed to those who think of Mathematical Fields as-if they are clouds, or oceans, of minuscule material particles, rather than of statistical mathematical "points", or "excited states" in "state space". Those abstract immaterial "points" are metaphorical, not physical. :smile:
State : State is a general word, often with no concrete implications or material relationships:
Fields : QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
What Are Quasiparticles?: The Real “Fake” Particles of the Universe : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC8Qym570m8
I don't know what you think pulling dictionary definitions prove or support in your arguments as nothing you have so far shows that quantum physics is on par with metaphysics. The two are not related no matter how much you want them to be.
To your first question, no I don't. I don't even know what a mind actually is yet the term is used often, I don't act though as if I am certain of anything I just act. The rest of your questions are all meaningless. The point of science is that one can test the claims being put forth. Considering science has brought planes, miracle drugs, tvs and other such gadgets I see no reason to doubt their testimony. I could but why? Unlike religion they actually deliver. I have experienced plenty of the facts of science, considering I have a major in the field.
If you are asking on what empirical basis, it's that I see it and feel it, etc. But one cannot know anything for sure and science doesn't claim to have certainty, hence it has evidence and not proof. I mean science acknowledges it's limits, other schools don't. I mean I can't be certain of my direct experience either, I have no choice but to take it as a given. I can't be sure of my mind or brain either. If you want to play the game of skepticism then we can play but neither of us is going to win out.
I'm not sure where you are going with your line of reasoning, but spouting dictionary terms seems to reflect your inability to put a good argument together. If you are trying to cast doubt on senses and empiricism then you don't have any grounds for trying to tie quantum physics with metaphysics.
Never Mind. Sorry my philosophizing got your scientific rigor riled-up. But your topic sounded like it was right down my metaphysical alley. :cool:
I never said that I doubt the physical senses or the physical world. That notion is in your imagination. My arguments have nothing to do with doubting the validity of physical sciences. Your prejudice against Metaphysics seems to be the source of your erroneous attributions.
I enjoy discussing both Physics (science) and Metaphysics (philosophy). But we seem to be speaking different languages. I am especially interested in the topic of this thread : Quantum Physics and Philosophy. I'm not qualified to discuss the technical or mathematical topics of Quantum Theory, but I am generally familiar with the philosophical issues, such as Quantum Information, Ontology of quantum states, quantum state realism, the Measurement Problem, Entanglement-nonlocality-nonseparability. These are Metaphysical questions. As the quote below says, I see these issues as "a resource to be developed", not a problem to wish away. :smile:
Quantum Philosophy : Quantum mechanics has not only given rise to interpretational conundrums; it has given rise to new concepts in computing and in information theory. Quantum information theory is the study of the possibilities for information processing and transmission opened up by quantum theory. This has given rise to a different perspective on quantum theory, one on which, as Bub (2000, 597) put it, “the puzzling features of quantum mechanics are seen as a resource to be developed rather than a problem to be solved”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/
Introducing that into QM is likely to cause more problems and confusion in an already dense field of study.
Sounds like intolerant prejudice to me. :smile:
Take Schrodinger's cat for example.
Just yesterday I came across a video that claims that quantum superposition (Schrodinger's cat) is foundational to modern computer technology, in essence validating it.
Yet, some say, Schrodinger created the thought experiment just to show that there's something deeply flawed with quantum mechanics, in short invalidating the theory. Coming from one of the founders of quantum theory - Erwin Schrodinger - this needs to be taken seriously, right? Schrodinger eventually gave up - if that's the right way to see it - and took up biology. :chin:
So, yeah, we're, at least I am, very, very confused as to what the quantum world is all about.
So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste.
Is the physics concept of force, or capacity, or electrical resistance, or wave frequency a metaphysical concept? I would be hard pressed to believe that.
The explanation you gave is not sufficient for me to conceptualize what metaphysics is. I still don't know what it is. It is NOT your fault, and I don't hold you responsible for its existence, and I don't hold you liable to teach me what it is.I have NO CONCEPT what to think when others talk about metaphysics.
So when you say Quoting Gnomon then I don't know if it's true or not. Because it contains a phrase which I do not have a clue what it means.
I am not pulling your leg and I am not being obstreperous by purposefully acting stupid. I don't know what metaphysics is, precisely because its definition as per above includes things that I consider real, physical. If it's not physical, and it's physical, then obviously it is nonsense.
I am not saying metaphysics is nonsense. I say that the definition given renders it nonsense.
I have no clue what metaphysics is. It is not defined unambiguously. I can't deal with that.
I relate to your comments. One little nit-picking detail:
Quoting god must be atheist
You can feel gravity.
Quoting god must be atheist
Much of the confusion arises from frequent time honored conflation of realist ontology with metaphysics. Ontology is perfectly adequate to the study of what there is or what there could be given realist philosophical axioms. Metaphysics is the appropriate term for examining all philosophical axiomatic systems as systems rather than what can be derived or speculated in each philosophy.
Metaphysics is analogous to pure mathematics in that both are purely abstract and have abstract applications as well. Meta-metaphysics is to metaphysics (in plural) as meta-mathematics is to mathematics (also plural).
How do you do that.
Is talking to spirits in seances meta-physics? Yes. Is gravity meta-physics? If you consider, and only consider the definition that Gnomon has used, then yes. To refresh: Quoting Gnomon
Is this how everyone understands what metaphysics is?
I think Gnomon is right, if you consistently apply the definition quoted. "Things we can only infer, but but not feel" is what I think "things we can only see with the eyes of our mind" means. And if you accept this definition, then Gnomon is absolutely, irrefutably right in calling QM and physical properties that are theorized all MP (metaphysics).
However, I resent the implication that I understand talking to spirits, only because I understand wave function. If the expression "MP" as Gnomon suggests were acceptable universally, then it would be clear that I understand some MP concepts yet I don't understand some other MP concepts, furthermore, I declare they are not believable (such as seance parties).
I think Gnomon's definition is a subset of the definition of theoretical physics and a subset of the definition what must be truly metaphysics. Both have this part. But it's not enough; the phenomenon is not exclusively worded for its definition. A good definition will not only say one or another or a few parts of the quality of a concept; it will state all properties, that are part of the concept, but they also delineate the concept from all other concepts we have in our minds.
So instead of arguing with Gnomon, I suggest that whoever is interested in carrying on a meaningful conversation, must create a different defintion from Gnomon's for "MP".
However, posterity, as a trend, does not speak Greek, and they wrongly figured that metaphysics is a concept of something, and that something is included in the chapter "metaphysics". This is a misconception. The contents of metaphysics is a mish-mash, a junkyard of disparate pieces of thougts. It contains parts that are not related to other parts at all and whatsoever; however, modern English language distorted the meaning of "metaphysics" and thus distorted the philosophy of Aristotle.
This is a shamble, a bimmbele-bammbele, a durr-bele, but I can't help it as a person alone all by myself.
Subsequently, many people started to IMAGINE what metaphysics as a full concept means; they created schools of thought on what they thought MP meant; one of the schools of thought is to define MP as
Quoting Gnomon
There is no rule on creating schools on a misunderstanding or on complete ignorance. I don't support the concept, of doing just that, personally, and I am only saying that for the record.
Yes. As indicated in some my links above, modern Quantum Physics has crossed the line between absolute Newtonian physics, and relative Einsteinian physics. Your confusion is understandable, because the traditional definition of "Metaphysics" referred to "spiritual" concepts instead of physical percepts. Now, that formerly-clear distinction is blurred. For example, a quantum particle is believed to do something only ghosts could do before : pass through solid objects (quantum tunneling).
Moreover, the notion of "Superposition" would have been characterized as "Supernatural" by Newton. The current ambiguity of the distinction between Physics & Metaphysics, is why I chose to define them in a new way in my thesis : "Physics is what you perceive with your physical senses, and Metaphysics is what you conceive with your non-physical Mind" (mind is an immaterial process, not a material object). There's more discussion of that notion in my blog. :nerd:
Quantum Metaphysics : The line between metaphysics and physics is often blurry, but as a rough guide, one can think of a theory's metaphysics as those foundational assumptions made in its interpretation that are not usually directly tested in experiment.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_119
Particles Walk Through Walls While Physicists Watch : https://www.livescience.com/20380-particles-quantum-tunneling-timing.html
Supernatural Entanglement : https://oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg/bleow001/supernatural-entanglement/
Quoting god must be atheist
I'll try to disambiguate it for you. Are abstract ideas in the mind physical? If not, what are they? Is gravity a physical object, or a geometric warping of empty space? Is "Geometry" physical & empirical. or an abstract & mental concept? Ideas & concepts are literally meta-(beyond)-physics. :smile:
Abstractions : something which exists only as an idea --- Ideal.
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.
Is Math Metaphysical? : Math is not physical (composed of matter/energy), though all physical things seem to conform to it.
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527
Metaphysical Geometry : Thus, we believe and we can show that metaphysical truths, which are entirely independent of the concepts of god, creation, divine, etc. ... In other words, geometry is the reflection of intelligible truths in the plane of human mind which can understand things only in terms of the conditions of time and space.
https://tomajjavidtash.com/2016/03/13/metaphysics-geometry/
Quoting god must be atheist
Hmm - off the of of my head I can think of a few simple tests.
1) Lift your arms up and then relax them. You will feel your arms falling back to your sides.
Please be careful as you perform this next test.
2) Stand on a low chair or stool. You will feel a brief sense of acceleration as you are falling down. You will also feel some sudden de-acceleration as your feet hit the floor. To get the maximum experience of this effect, go sky diving (be sure to take a parachute. :razz:
I could be mistaken, but I believe the sensations you will experience from these experiments are the result of gravity acting on your arms (#1) or your whole body (#2)
No. The common vernacular definition of "metaphysics" is "supernatural". But that is not the philosophical definition, nor how I use the term in my thesis. The metaphysical Mind is a product of natural evolution, but it is not an empirical object, or a tangle of neurons. Instead, the Mind is the function of the brain. It's what brains do --- a goal-directed activity. It can't be studied under a microscope, only by rational inference from behavior. The metaphysical Mind is not physical, but it is Real and Natural. :smile:
Metaphysics : Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. As such, it is concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses. ...
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
Function : kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Newton's gravity was imagined as a pulling force, that was different from all other forces, which push. Einstein's gravity is not a "force", so you can't sense it directly. Instead, you "feel" the effects of that geometric change of direction on your body. For example, technically, the centrifugal "force" you feel when whirling in circles, is not gravity, but internal stresses due to non-straight-line motion. Modern, Einsteinian Physics is counter-intuitive, because much of it is Meta-physical. :cool:
Feeling of Gravity : Locally you cannot feel a gravitational field. In ordinary life, as you walk across the earth, you don't feel gravity. What you feel is the mechanical stresses that are exerted by the earth against your feet, and then transmitted throughout your body.
https://www.av8n.com/physics/gravity-perception.htm
Which do you prefer : the simple vernacular definition of MP, or the various abstruse mathematical definitions? I post links to the definitions used by physicists. But most viewers don't click the links. So they are not aware that "Gnomon's definition" is completely compatible with modern quantum physics. My ad hoc disambiguation definition above is intended to make a clear distinction between the vernacular definition and the technical definition, in terms that are easy to understand. Besides, even Newton's physics was grounded on supernatural assumptions : God was an axiom. The whole point of "Gnomon's definition" is to disambiguate a murky concept. :nerd:
Newton’s Metaphysics of Space as God’s Emanative Effect : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-014-0142-8
I was a physics major in college. I make no claims to being very good at it, but once you accept the two basic premises that that nothing can go faster than c and that the laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference? There is nothing counter intuitive about it.
The math is indeed very hard (my stumbling block), but there is nothing "meta" about it. Special & general relativity are real & measurable. They have no intrinsic "meaning".
Quoting Gnomon
These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry.
But don't let my grousing stop you - as far as these things go it's relatively harmless. . .
I have no training in Physics, beyond 101 courses, and 50 years of reading science. So, I am aware that, officially, the science of Physics does not concern itself with "meaning". But this is a Philosophy forum, and that discipline does concern itself with meaning and human values. When the OP titled this thread, he, perhaps unwittingly, included the Search for Meaning in the topic. And that's what got my attention. Modern Philosophy is inherently Metaphysical, because Modern Science took on the task of understanding the physical world, and left the non-physical topics for feckless philosophers to debate endlessly, while science actually made progress on many fronts.
Ironically, three big steps in that progression of knowledge have raised embarrassing questions about the Materialist assumptions that physics, since Aristotle, was based on. That quantum leap opened doors for Philosophical progress, which were closed since Galileo. Physics asks specific questions about Particular things, and reasons by reductive analysis. Philosophy though, asks general questions about Universals, and reasons by synthetic theories. Hence, when empirical scientists produce General theories about Universals, such as Evolution and Theories of Everything, they are inadvertently doing philosophy.
Those 20th century diversions into philosophy were Quantum Physics, Systems Theory, and Information Theory. Together, they have revealed that the foundations of Reality are not Material, but Mathematical, Holistic & Informational. The 21st century role of Leucippus' "Atom" is now filled by a "bit" of Information, as noted above. The "queer" worldview painted by those new fields of study has been quickly adopted by Theologians, New Agers, and Mystics. Hence, it has been rejected by those who favor the ancient theory of Materialism. Yet, although I fit in none of those categories, I have accepted the philosophical implications of 21st century Science, that still make some philosophers uncomfortable. I didn't intend to discomfit the OP with a 21st century worldview. But I was not completely surprised at his closed-minded reception. :joke:
Philosophy : (from Greek: ?????????, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. ... Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
The Meaning of Life : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/
Meta-Physics : [ Physicist, Cosmologist, Astrobiologist ] Paul Davies makes a provocative claim. ''The new physics,'' he writes, ''has overturned so many commonsense notions of space, time and matter that no serious religious thinker can ignore it.''
https://www.csmonitor.com/1983/1104/110407.html
Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics : Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance. Why? In this book, eminent scientists, philosophers and theologians chart various aspects of information, from quantum information to biological and digital information, in order to understand how nature works. Beginning with an historical treatment of the topic, the book also examines physical and biological approaches to information, and its philosophical, theological and ethical implications.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Information_and_the_Nature_of_Reality.html?id=0k6oQq8lN-YC
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
___Richard Feynman
Thanks for this gem. Makes reading these threads worthwhile. :smile:
You're right that that the feelings are the results of gravitational force. But the result is an interpretation of why you feel these feelings. If you see green, you immediately identify it. If you feel hot, you immediately identify it. If you feel pain, or hunger, you immediately identify it. No interpretation is needed.
As long as you need some interpretation to identify the source of a feeling, you don't actually feel it... you feel the effect of the sounce, not the source directly.
And that's precisely what makes gravity not a feeling, but a thing we see with our minds eye.
In my opinion, anything that you need your mind's eye to see because otherwise you wouldn't see it, is not a feeling you directly experience.
This is exemplified in the case of gravity by realizing that mankind lived with gravity since day one, but it was only conceptualized as a concept in the sixteen hundreds.
I agree. So totally agree with you. And that's why I stated that your definition is not exclusive. You must read Aristotle to see this.
As I pointed it out in the next post by me, I think metaphysics as a field of study does not exist. Therefore it defies definition. Metaphysics in the Classical sense is a collection of thoughts that were not proper to include in the physics section, but were mentioned in the after-physics section; and they are not related to each other.
In modern times metaphysics has gained a meaning of its own, detaching itself fromi its original etimology. But because there is no metaphysics, the new definitions vary, and have different scopes and meanings.
There is chaos on the metaphysics' interpretation, because defining metaphysics is anyone's game. There is no consensus.
Therefore I reject any claim of metaphysics before a definition is given for it.
You, Gnomon, were kind enough to provide your own definition. It is not a faulty definition, since no consensus has been reached. But it is a rather useless definition, because it allows you to claim the presence of metaphysics in quantum mechaincs. Per your definition, it is perfectly valid. However, many people immediately conjure concepts of what metaphysics are, and disregard your defintion, and they therefore reject your claim.
You claim is valid as long as your reader accepts your definition.
Isn't that how philosophy is done : first define your terms, then make your argument? I was forced to define the concept of "non-physical" or "virtual" reality, precisely because it's a debatable topic. Besides, those other definitions have no bearing on my argument. If my definition is not faulty, and it is pertinent to my topic, why call it "useless"? I am simply using the literal meaning of the word, beyond physical nature, instead of the supernatural accretions over the years. Those who think of Metaphysics as supernatural may "disregard" my definition. But they can't thereby claim to "defeat" my argument. My thesis stands or falls on its own definitions, not irrelevant notions. Metaphysics : the abstract side of reality.
Apparently, Aristotle thought "beyond-physics" was an important aspect of reality, because he devoted a whole volume to topics that didn't fit into the category of Physical Science. In volume 2, he was no longer discussing "facts" of physical reality, but human ideas or opinions about Reality. He even referred to it as "First Philosophy". Not merely after Physics, but prior to Physics in philosophical importance. When Quantum Physics refers to "Virtual" particles, are they materially real, or merely a not-yet-real (potential) aspect of "being as being"? Ghost particles, Entanglement, Tunneling , Spooky-action-at-a-distance. Do you deny that Quantum Physics is dabbling in Philosophy?
If you don't like my application of "Metaphysics" to Quantum Physics, just substitute "Philosophy" in its place. Is that still a "useless" definition for a thread entitled : "Quantum Physics and Philosophy"? What does philosophy study, if not the non-physical abstract qualities of human experience? One of those qualities is the non-physical property we call "Mind". Do you, like Darkneos, deny the existence of Minds, just because they can't be examined under a microscope? Is non-physical "Mind" (below) a "useless definition"? :nerd:
How does Aristotle define metaphysics? :
What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself. Perhaps the starting point of Aristotle's metaphysics is his rejection of Plato's Theory of Forms.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotle/section7/
Virtual : The definition of virtual is something that exists in the mind, exists in essence but not in fact or created by a computer. An example of virtual is an imaginary friend. An example of virtual is a world created by a computer video game.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/virtual
Mind : (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. ...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mind
Yes, you're right. There is agreeable philosophy, and then there are disagreeable definitions. I find yours -- pardon me, this is not personal, at all, we are arguing concepts here, not personal preferences or personalities -- objectionable for one reason and one reason only. You take a term that has been given some kind of aura, that is pervasive in its usage. Then you give it a very restrictive meaning, which is very far removed from the generally accepted consensus of its meaning.
But that is not my objection. Freud had his ID, Ego and Superego, Plato had his Ideals, Kant had his Kategorical Imperative. Fine, you have your Metaphysics. The problem is, that your definition has no implication outside its immediate implication. "Metaphysics are things we can only see with our minds eyes. Therefore quantum mechanics is replete with metaphysical ideals." It is true, very true, I wouldn't argue against it; but it does nothing else but state the obvious in a way different from the normally accepted way of saying the same obvious thing.
So... QM is full of instances of things visible only with our minds' eyes. True. Then what?
Where is the insight in this? What is the usefulness of stating this?
To my knowledge (and please correct me if you are sure I am wrong) Aristotle does NOT define his use of the word "Metaphysics". It is the name of a chapter in his book, and he lists a bunch of relationships between things, but these relationships are not a coherent unit, they contain disparate, from each other independent elements. He named this chapter metaphysics because it literally followed the chapter "physics" in his book, and metaphysics meant to him, "after physics" which had no meaning, other than "this chapter is after the chapter "physics"". It's only his posterity who give reason to believe that he meant some certain thing with the name "metaphysics."
I think your quote is a mistaken interpretation. I could be wrong, I stand corrected if you can show I am wrong.
Do you think it's "objectionable" for a philosopher to disambiguate an ancient term with centuries of misleading accretions? I doubt that precision-of-definition is what you find objectionable. Instead, it's the materialist dogma that dismisses any hint of preternatural phenomena. Yet my definition says that Meta-physical Information (ideas, meanings, concepts) is indeed non-physical, but is completely Natural. Aristotle apparently thought it was an important distinction, even though he didn't give it a name. Personally, I think the name "Meta-physics" is descriptive & apt. So it shouldn't be offensive to anyone who acknowledges Ari's division of Science into the physical (volume 1) and the non-physical (vol 2) aspects of Natural Reality.
* Note 1 -- Energy is a mysterious & immaterial Ontological Cause that creates (enforms) & transforms tangible Matter. Yet Cause & Effect are erroneously lumped together under the heading of "Physics". But, for the purposes of my thesis, and Aristotle's, Causes are Meta-Physical. (Hume)
* "All of our experiences in life can be attributed to Energy. Metaphysical causes are a result of the energy manifesting its self as a physical outcome."
https://www.isygrigg.com/metaphysical-causes/
* Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups: physics, mathematics, and theology. He does, however, recognize the branch of philosophy now called metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.” ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics
* Note 2 -- In my thesis, I combine all of the non-physical groups under the heading of Meta-Physics. But, Information actually manifests in two forms : material and mental. If you are not familiar with cutting edge Information Theory, that statement may sound "objectionable". But the thesis attempts to ease the mental transition from either/or Materialism to both/and Enformationism.
The last part of my glossary definition says : "5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being)."
Quoting god must be atheist
The answer to your questions is in the Enformationism thesis. I give many examples to show how Information (e.g. Energy) can be both physical (matter) and non-physical (mind). It's the Prime Substance of our world. That "insight" is my minor contribution to the progress of philosophy. The "usefulness" of that insight may result in the reconciliation between estranged Philosophy & Science.
Prime Substance : The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. . . .
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Prime matter is matter with no substantial form of its own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
* Note 3 -- Aristotle's "Prime Substance" and Spinoza's "Universal Substance" are what I call "Enformation" -- the power to give form to the formless. One aspect is "Energy".
Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
You are actually almost right about that.
I reject any hint of supernatural explanations of phenomena.
And you're right, it is my beleif and if you like, dogma.
It is useful dogma. If I did not have that dogma, and most people did not have it, then we would still be burning old ladies as witches at the stake. We'd tie women into immobility, if they were suspected of being witches, and throw them into the sea; and we'd beleive that if they float, they are witches, and if they sink and die, they are not witches.
Furthermore we'd believe in the existence of the Holy Grail, in the existence of the Stone of the Wise, that turns everything into gold. We would believe that seances produce a conversation between the living and the dead. We would believe in many, many things that scientists who start with nothing but believeing my dogma also, have many times debunked each time completely.
So yes, you're right, it is my dogma that is driving me, but this dogma is useful, has proved to be useful and true.
-------------------------
On the other hand you define metaphysics that allows interpretation of sub-particle activities to be of the same value and service to mankind, as witch burning and seances. THIS is why I object to your definition. Never mind my dogma. In my books the two are separate systems of thought, and one describes reality, the other does not. The two have no common things in their mechanisms. Yet your definition allows that. Therefore it is not a good definition, because it equates disparate, non-related elements in this world: solid, observed elements (QM) to another element that is sheer fantasy, disproved fiction and intentional fraud.
Actually, in freefall you feel weightless. What you feel is some air resistance and then the floor hitting you.
There is the actual world which is made out of huge amounts of fundamental particles arranged into what we perceive as trees, lakes other people and other galaxy, operating in accordance with the fundamental realities of nature which we call physics.
We survey this world using our seances and we build a representation of it in our heads that consists of neurons and it is to this representation have access to. We would traditionally call this representation reality. Although this is not the world it contains information about the world as the word representation would suggest. A map of the earth is a representation of the earth, but it is not the earth. The map talks a lot of liberties in how it represents things, a living breathing city of millions of people may for example be represented by a small black dot and the words London, or Mexico City or Tokyo. Similarly, the massive Mississippi river is often represented by a small blue line.
We represent different combinations of photons with different energies as color when they are photons and even the best physicists idea of a photon is a representation of what the things actual are. Smell is a representation of volatile, mostly organic chemicals and sound is how we represent the physical phenomena of compression waves.
I don't know about the precise definition of metaphysics but science tells us what we perceive as reality can only ever be a distorted representation of the actual physical world. Science is the process of trying to find more about the worlds underling reality using some combination of specialized observation and rigorous logic. Science is also about generating a framework in which we can connect all the things we find out together by building a scientific model with the scientific model it’s self simply a different type of representation of the universes underlying reality.
Quantum Physics is simply a framework that allows for particulate underlying realities of the universe to be represented in a way that those with training can understand. I do think that any framework by which we seek to understand “philosophic questions” should at least be consistent with well-established scientific models including those produces by physicists. In honesty I think science is the most powerful tools we have when it comes to producing a more useful, less distorted representation of the world.
How did you get those medieval notions from my definitions of Meta-Physics? I suspect that's your definition, and you are ignoring mine.
I understand your conventional position. If we were talking about "Scholastic Metaphysics", I might agree with you. But I'm talking about the unconventional notion of "Naturalized Metaphysics". It's based on cutting-edge Science and Philosophy. The hypothesis that everything, including Matter & Mind, consists of polymorphous Information, is a novel idea. And it challenges both the ancient notion of Materialism, and the current doctrine of Physicalism. So I don't expect it to become common knowledge until older scientists and philosophers die off. And I doubt that the credentialed scientists at the Santa Fe Institute (complex systems), who are studying the endless applications of Information, obtain their information from Seances. :joke:
Everything Must Go : Ladyman, Ross, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093
Naturalized Metaphysics : Every Thing Must Go argues that the only kind of metaphysics that can contribute to objective knowledge is one based specifically on contemporary science as it really is, and not on philosophers' a priori intuitions, common sense, or simplifications of science.
https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093
One Funeral at a Time : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time-the-latest-nobel-proves-it
Information and the Nature of Reality : From Physics to Metaphysics
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Nature-Reality-Metaphysics-Classics/dp/1107684536
From Matter to Life -- Information and Causality :
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531
Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. :chin:
Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers : Information Processors. However, it's not what psychics and mediums think it is. Computer data is Information, and Energy is enformation. It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of. But it's not supernatural; it's not some ghostly goo, or green slime. It's merely the mundane mathematical relationship that powers Thermodynamics.
Religious believers were quick to pick-up on the parallels between Quantum Science and Spiritualism. But Atheist scientists are now getting on board, and writing books on Physics & Metaphysics, risking ridicule from their peers. Theists and Atheists can adapt "Information" to their disparate needs. But believing in Ectoplasm doesn't prove the existence of ghosts. :nerd:
Ectoplasm : (from the Greek ektos, meaning "outside", and plasma, meaning "something formed or molded") is a term used in spiritualism to denote a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.
"The legitimacy of physics is one of mankind’s greatest delusions."
The legitimacy of philosophy (where it isn't just science in disguise) is one of mankind's greatest delusions.
Physics is just people doing there best to generate a framework that as accurately represents the rules that the universe flows based on observation and logic.
Much of physics is backed up by evidence, E=MC squared was demonstrated to be a reasonable representation of realty by the advent of the nuclear bomb. Our ability to produce much of modern technology you use was made possible by the framework that physicists have provided. You should not call into question the legitimacy of physics.
Quoting Gnomon
Not at all. Your initial defintion of metaphysics is this:
Quoting Gnomon
You wrote this. Your definition. Your words. Verbatim. Please don't deny this, because even the reference is there that it was penned by you.
I assert that this definition includes both quantum mechanics and the reason and rationale behind witch burning. I proved it. Now it's your turn to prove I made a mistake in the proof.
To wit, Gnomon, for a long time you were hailing my support that your definition is valid, as definitions go, You said there is nothing wrong with going away from customary defintiions when a philosopher defines a term. You were happy and revelled in the fact that your definition was proven to include quantum mechanics.
But now you are protesting like an obstreperous child to the claim that your definition includes witch burning as well.
It is not a question of protesting or denying. Your definition includes that (Read your own definition if you don't believe me.)
You are welcome now to desing a new definition, if you are willing to abandon this earlier defintion.
Please be careful how you word it. I am awaiting with interest how you will word it. You are a smart person, there is nothing stopping you from writing a good definition. I hope you agree with this opinion.
I am sorry, jgill, I don't understand your objection... mainly because you did not support it with well-researched quotation from the Internet, which prove of course nothing, but look very important and pompous. Without those I am like a lost child in a desert when it comes to understanding opinions.
Ouch! It hurts when you throw my words back in my face. But, I cannot deny that I wrote those words. So, I stand by them. :joke:
However, where in those quoted words does it say anything about "witch burning" or "sheer fantasy", "disproved fiction" and "intentional fraud".. Show me any of those words in my post, and I'll admit that you have proven your false accusation. That's your "assertion" not mine. And ad hominem accusations are not philosophical proof of anything. Maybe you can create a syllogism that leads from belief in Mental "Phenomena" to human atrocities of Faith. That would only prove that your personal conception of Metaphysics is warped by your animus concerning Religion & Magic & Ghosts.
I'm not as gullible as you think. I have subscribed to Skeptical Enquirer and Skeptic magazine and Scientific American magazine for over 35 years. So, I know about "sheer fantasy", "disproved fiction" and "intentional fraud". And I know just enough about Quantum Physics to be dangerous . . . to Materialists and Spiritualists. FYI, here's the last line of my glossary definition of "Meta-Physics" : I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being). Can you find any "witch burning" in that quote?
I usually find your comments on this forum to be calm and rational. But you are completely missing the point of my comments on Quantum Theory and Philosophy. And your "witch burning" accusations sound more like fearful medieval villagers bearing torches. Are you going to accuse me of consorting with Satan next? Apparently, your faith in Materialism is strong. So, You are putting meanings in my words that are not in my mind. BTW, did you interpret "mind's eye" as the Hindu "third eye"? I was referring to Reason & Imagination, which can see things that are not. Do you think Einstein actually saw the world stretching as he rode on a light beam? :cool:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." ___Einstein
Concepts in Metaphysics : Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Concepts_in_metaphysics
Note : how many of those categories are physical objects that can be studied under a microscope? And how many can you see with the "eye of the body"? Is Space-Time a perceivable material object or an invisible mental metaphor?
Putting words into someone's mouth: a logical fallacy? ... I've always been told that it is giving your opponents worst argument so that you can defeat it easily, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALogical_fallacy
Here's another quote for you to parse :
Enformationism : a worldview or belief system, grounded in the assumption that mundane Information, not Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient worldview of Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Evidence from 21st century science follows . . . .
Quoting Gnomon
Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? This is similar to ectoplasm? This sounds a bit like quantum mysticism. But whatever rings your bell.
You need to accelerate first to get to free fall velocity. Your inner ear detects acceleration.
No. That's not even close to what I said. I'm simply offering my opinion : that the phenomena ancient sages explained in terms of "Spirit" is now explained in terms of "Energy". But Energy can now be explained in terms of "Information" and "Enformation". Hence, Information can be a physical cause (verb -- "to enform"). But, before Shannon, that same word referred only to non-quantifiable meta-physical knowledge in the mind (noun -- "fact") . So now, most scientists think of "information" in quantifiable physical terms as "negentropy" (i.e energy). And they forget that it originally referred to qualitative Ideas in a Mind.
That's not "quantum mysticism", it's just Information Theory. But, since Information/Energy is an invisible Cause in the natural world, it serves the same causal function as ancient notions of Spirit, Soul, Chi, Ghosts, Ectoplasm. Since Atheists tend to be offended by such "forbidden" words, they try to pin the "Mystic" label on me --- like holding a silver cross to defend against a vampire. But I'm neither an Atheist, nor a Theist, nor a Vampire, nor a Mystic. So, I'm comfortable with whatever terminology suits the application. I think the next generation of informed people will be more familiar, and comfortable, with the dual roles of Information : Matter stuff, and Mind stuff. :nerd:
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5123794.
Information (quality) : noun. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information
Information (quantity) : Shannon defined the quantity of information produced by a source--for example, the quantity in a message--by a formula similar to the equation that defines thermodynamic entropy in physics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/claude-e-shannon-founder/
Quoting Gnomon
Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation
Admittedly, you did say "something similar" to spiritual energy, so that lets you off the hook.
Free fall is not a velocity. It is an acceleration where the gravitational force acts on your mass, and your mass inertia provides the counter force to the gravity that causes acceleration.
Thanks, but I wasn't biting anyway. :wink:
Do virtual particles actually physically exist? : Thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word, virtual particles are particlemorphic , having a form like particle but not a particle.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist
Note 1 -- Is an "unreal", "metaphysical" [my words] virtual particle similar to a Platonic Form?
Virtual Particle or Disturbance? : " . . .A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.. . ." https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Note 2 -- is a "disturbance in a field" similar to a "disturbance in the Force"? Is "The Force" something like Spiritual Energy?
Quantum Fluctuation : Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle.
https://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
Note 3 -- Some Cosmologists theorize that our world was created-out-of-nothing due to a Quantum Fluctuation. Does that sound like Magic to you? And you think I'm a Mystic?
Virtual : The definition of virtual is something that exists in the mind, exists in essence but not in fact or created by a computer. An example of virtual is an imaginary friend.
Note 4 -- Why did Physicists call those " transient disturbances" by the ghostly term "virtual"? Is a Virtual Particle like an imaginary friend? Do ghost-hunters search for "transient disturbances"? I'm not making this stuff up. I'm quoting the words of Atheist Physicists.
Note 5 -- Mundane natural "Information" exists in the Mind, and in Matter. Yes?
Note 6 -- In view of all this spooky scientific language, do you now agree that Quantum Theory is dabbling in Philosophy --- in Meta-physics? And getting dangerously close to Mysticism. :cool:
I wasn’t aware philosophy possessed legitimacy. Exactly how much legitimacy can a field possess when all it does is question everything around it? Since when did a question require legitimacy?
Physics, like most else of human perception, is derived of labels and stories applied to what is observed through combinations of vastly limited senses. No different than when our ancestors worshipped the sun or created mythology out of the stars. Observations given labels and stories. Unquestioned in their time. Throughout our history different stages of humanity perceived themselves in possession of the unarguable truths of reality. The superior to every stage of existence prior and all yet to come. Despite this well-known recurring cycle of perceptual misconceptions of what is, what was, and what will be existing within our “highly evolved” minds we find ourselves falling victim to the same delusions even today.
The widely utilized, yet vastly overestimated perception of “evidence” plays a large part in this never ending cycle of fallacy. Everything is “evidence”. On its own it means nothing. Where upon it obtains the measure of validity resides solely within the limited and highly skewed perceptions of those who give them life. Everything can be evidence of anything. It’s what happens to exist within ones perception that ends up weaving the tale that serves as its answer.
E=MC2 is a fabrication derived of a term that means nothing and everything at the same time equated to a fictional set of measurements. Putting aside the fact nobody knows what the hell “light” is or if it even exists in the way we perceive it, there is nothing existing of a concrete nature in which a concocted measurement of traversal for “light” has any connection whatsoever in regards to mass or energy, nor anything else. Energy isn’t even an actual thing. It’s an observation of change. The way it’s defined everything is energy. What this ultimately means is that E=MC2 is an “equation” that can literally be used to serve up as evidence of anything. It’s the equivalent to gravity. Perceptual labels to observations that don’t actually mean anything at all nor provide anything tangible in way of explanation nor understanding beyond the misperceptions they hold within this current period of human history.
If physics never came to be, technology would still exist in much the same way it does today. We would just use different labels and stories to explain the existence behind them.
Let's for a moment accept that philosophy possesses no legitimacy. Then the question "Does philosophy possess legitimacy" can't be answered philosophically without creating a paradox.
Therefore the question loses legitimacy, because a negative answer to it (no it does not) renders the anwer illegitimate too, which renders the question regitimate, which renders the answer legitimate, which renders the question illegitimate... a vicious paradox.
So the only reasonable answer that avoids chaos and disorder is to answer the quesiton "does philosophy possess legitimacy" is yes.
Quoting JackBRotten
This I contest. Philosophy is not a madman's phantasm, and it is not a sane person's misinterpretation of reality. Philosophy is not delusion, although it does not provenly grasp reality. It is not delusion, but flight of fancy, a creative game of playing with puzzle pieces of reality and putting the puzzle together which can create an infinite valid varieties of answers on reality, which are nevertheless not proven. This is not delusion. You delude yourself if you believe this is delusion.
The statement “The legitimacy of philosophy (where it isn't just science in disguise) is one of mankind's greatest delusions.” is not only negative and reflects negativism and pessimistic naysaying, it is also untrue.
Quoting JackBRotten
What you propose is not the only funcion of philosophy. You are cherry-picking. To condemn a field because of one aspect of it, and because of a false claim that that one aspect encompasses the entire field, whereas it does not, is a logical fallacy. It resembles a Strawman argument, but it must be a named subset of the Strawman.
Actually, in Physics there are many disparate definitions of fundamental Particles. And the bottom line is that "we don't know" what they are. "We" don't know, because "we" are materialists, who can't see anything but Atoms & Void. Where does invisible Energy fit in that worldview?
My thesis proposes that "everything in the universe reduces to Information (the power to enform). And some scientists have reached that same conclusion (It from Bit). For example, in the article below, the "traits" of particles, "change & mass", are not physical objects but meta-physical Information about dimensionless points. Once you grasp the notion that the foundation of Reality is immaterial, then the Enformationism thesis will begin to make sense. It will still be counter-intuitive, like Quantum Theory itself, but you will begin to "see" invisible Information at all levels of Reality. :nerd:
[i]“What are the fundamental building blocks of the universe on its most fundamental scales?” — a more sophisticated phrasing of my question,“What is a particle?”
In the meantime, Engelhardt said, “‘We don’t know’ is the short answer.”
Given that everything in the universe reduces to particles, a question presents itself: What
are particles? The easy answer quickly shows itself to be unsatisfying. Namely, electrons, photons, quarks, and other “fundamental” particles supposedly lack substructure or physical extent. “We
basically think of a particle as a pointlike object,” . . . . and yet particles have distinct traits, such as charge and mass. How can a dimensionless point bear weight?[/i]
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-particle-20201112/
Universal Information : similar to Energy, but also to Mind & Matter. It's omnipotential.
All of that aside, the notion that something not having legitimacy somehow creating a paradox upon asking if it has legitimacy would seem to indicate either a perception of legitimacy that exists far different than the way it is defined, or a misperception of what a “paradox” indicates. The way you applied it makes the very notion of “legitimacy” non-existent. If the answer to a question of whether something possesses legitimacy collapses upon itself whenever the answer is perceived as a “no”, then the varying perceptions of what and what does not possess legitimacy creates a scenario where nothing does. In which case the concept itself ceases to function losing any reason exist.