The Fine-Tuning Argument as (Bad) an Argument for God
The Fine-Tuning Argument says that the present Universe (including the laws that govern it and the initial conditions from which it has evolved) permits life only because these laws and conditions take a very special form, small changes in which would make life impossible.
The argument is fine as far as it goes. (No pun intended.) If certain physical constants (speed of light, mass excess of neutron over proton, etc.) were different, even slightly, even one part in ten million, then life as we know it could not exist. Material life. Living matter. What was once called protoplasm.
So, if God exists and wanted to create living beings that are physical and material, then God would need to create a suitable universe for those beings to live in. The fine-tuning argument says, more or less, that is exactly what happened: we live in a universe fine-tuned for us.
But suppose we really are immaterial, immortal souls. If we are immaterial, immortal souls, then the type of universe we inhabit is irrelevant. The universe could be made entirely of green goo, and it wouldnt matter to an immortal soul. A ghost doesnt care if its raining or not. Its immaterial; it doesnt get wet.
In fact, souls dont even need a material universe to exist. Souls only stay in this universe a short time and then spend eternity in one or two non-material places: heaven or hell (according to Christian dogma).
So, why would God bother to create an intricately fine-tuned universe for the sake of souls who dont need one? Any lesson a soul learns in a material universe could be learned in some non-material place. Whats the point of this universe? To impress us? Did God want to show us he could get all those pesky physical constants exactly right? But if were soulsimmortal, immaterial soulsthat fact alone should be enough to convince us God exists. (Why isnt it? Because we actually experience ourselves as bodies, not souls?)
Souls dont need a universe, fine-tuned or otherwise. So, its hard to argue this universe was made for us, beings who live in an infinitesimal part of the universe, begins who would die if randomly transported to another part of the universe, or transported to another part of Earth (middle of the ocean, the Sahara Desert, etc.)
The argument is fine as far as it goes. (No pun intended.) If certain physical constants (speed of light, mass excess of neutron over proton, etc.) were different, even slightly, even one part in ten million, then life as we know it could not exist. Material life. Living matter. What was once called protoplasm.
So, if God exists and wanted to create living beings that are physical and material, then God would need to create a suitable universe for those beings to live in. The fine-tuning argument says, more or less, that is exactly what happened: we live in a universe fine-tuned for us.
But suppose we really are immaterial, immortal souls. If we are immaterial, immortal souls, then the type of universe we inhabit is irrelevant. The universe could be made entirely of green goo, and it wouldnt matter to an immortal soul. A ghost doesnt care if its raining or not. Its immaterial; it doesnt get wet.
In fact, souls dont even need a material universe to exist. Souls only stay in this universe a short time and then spend eternity in one or two non-material places: heaven or hell (according to Christian dogma).
So, why would God bother to create an intricately fine-tuned universe for the sake of souls who dont need one? Any lesson a soul learns in a material universe could be learned in some non-material place. Whats the point of this universe? To impress us? Did God want to show us he could get all those pesky physical constants exactly right? But if were soulsimmortal, immaterial soulsthat fact alone should be enough to convince us God exists. (Why isnt it? Because we actually experience ourselves as bodies, not souls?)
Souls dont need a universe, fine-tuned or otherwise. So, its hard to argue this universe was made for us, beings who live in an infinitesimal part of the universe, begins who would die if randomly transported to another part of the universe, or transported to another part of Earth (middle of the ocean, the Sahara Desert, etc.)
Comments (77)
I would guess that the universe was designed, not for free-floating souls, but for embodied souls. In this case, the word "soul" refers to sentient selves -- including some animals -- not to angelic beings inhabiting a non-space-time realm. Furthermore, the "design" is still being implemented after 14 billion years, and is still not completed. So, the "fine-tuning" was merely the preset limits (natural laws) within which the evolutionary process operates. Consequently, I imagine the Singularity as a program for the creation of a self-organizing world from scratch. Design criteria were programmed into the Singularity to guide the process from Big Bang beginning to Big Sigh ending.
Who the Programmer was, and why s/he choose to create an imperfect physical world with not-yet-perfect metaphysical Minds, is beyond my ken. The most common answers to "why" have been some variation on the theme of a power relationship, that : a> a Ruler requires some rulees ; b> an all-powerful Tyrant must have some powerless slaves/serfs to push around ; c> a perfect G*D needs an ego-boost from being worshiped by lesser beings ; or c> a loving Father/Mother necessarily wants to produce children to love & nurture. None of those bottom-up perspectives makes sense from the viewpoint of a Being with the power to create worlds from scratch. So, my answer to "why" would be "huh?". :confused: :chin: :brow:
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
I had heard of the Anthropic Argument -- that the world was designed specifically for human habitation -- but didnt really scrutinize it until recently. The core concept was implicit in the Intelligent Design theories of Christian apologists. And I understood the general reasoning --- from an array of puzzling scientific coincidences, such as the unique initial conditions and fine-tuned constants that seemed arbitrarily selected to produce a world with living & thinking creatures --- they concluded that there must be a logical reason for our being.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
Isn't the fallacy with the "Fine-Tuning Argument" more fundamental than what you've proposed? The argument presupposes that there is something special about US: We are so special that God created this universe especially for US.
For those who don't hold such a self-centered view of themselves, the argument is a non-starter.
Taking it up a level of abstraction:
Many Christians love to cite the following verse. Aren't WE special?
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.
An interesting fact about that verse": Despite that fact that so many attribute those words to Jesus, a really strong case can be made that it is commentary made by the narrator of John 6 about what Jesus said to Nicodemus just prior.
But a big problem with the argument is that even if you accept that it leads to the idea of a designer - it doesn't prove any particular god. It could also be said to support simulation theory or a committee of designer gods, or even alien designers.
The problem with the argument itself is summarized by physicist Sean Carroll - 'We dont really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we dont know the conditions under which life is possible."
Quoting Art48
I understand this ingenious argument but don't think it is especially effective since we are not in a position to know why a god would do anything, let alone would create a material world. Just because it seems wrong based on our priorities and understanding of souls does not mean it is. The best I can say for that argument is that we have a question to ask God when we see them. For all we know, God may have determined that the best way of testing the goodness of a soul is to insert it into a life world limited by time, material constraints and tested by physical desires. Or whatever...
The real question here is whether arguments from medieval scholasticism are relevant today.
:100: :up:
A Malus Deus building the perfect penitentiary colony for us hapless souls.
[quote=Wikipedia]The Demiurge, one of those Aeons, creates the physical world. Divine elements "fall" into the material realm, and are locked within human beings.[/quote]
By the way kudos to the OP - s/he forced us to make some changes to the picture of God we have in our minds.
P. S. How do you know the universe isn't fine tuned for souls as well? Do you know something we don't? Spit it out ..
will you?
It's interesting that some people think this is about humans being "special".
I've always interpreted it in the sense of, "Even though humans are so bad and evil and undeserving, God still loves us! Isn't God great!!"
This is typically Western theology infused by secularism; a bottom-up approach, explaining theological matters from the perspective of humans.
"Because it pleases God to do so," a more old-fashioned theologist would say.
Muchas gracias! The data speaks for itself I'm told but true, the universe may be fine-tuned for something else entirely. We have on our hands a case to solve, oui monsieur?
That's interesting. The vast majority of Christians that I've known seem to interpret it as "even though humans are so bad and evil and undeserving, God still loves us because we are so special to Him". But of course that includes only those who believe that Jesus paid the penalty for their sins by dying on the cross. And of course they often append a "Isn't God great!!" as part of the false humility that seems all too common amongst Christians: "God is God and I am not. I am just a spec of dust... " or what have you.
Ezekiel 33
13When I say to the righteous that he will certainly live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits injustice, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but for that same injustice of his which he has committed he will die. 14But when I say to the wicked, You will certainly die, and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, 15if a wicked person returns a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing injustice, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 16None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has practiced justice and righteousness; he shall certainly live.
30But as for you, son of man, your fellow citizens who talk with one another about you by the walls and in the doorways of the houses, speak one with another, each with his brother, saying, 'Come now and hear what the message is that comes from the LORD. 31And they come to you as people come, and sit before you as My people and hear your words,but they do not do them; for they do the lustful desires expressed by their mouth, and their heart follows their unlawful gain.
From the OP: But suppose we really are immaterial, immortal souls. If we are immaterial, immortal souls, then the type of universe we inhabit is irrelevant. The universe could be made entirely of green goo, and it wouldnt matter to an immortal soul. A ghost doesnt care if its raining or not. Its immaterial; it doesnt get wet.
You're on the mark, but what if there are immaterial aspects of this our universe - perfected to house souls and satisfy their needs - that we're unaware of?
Too, the physical characteristics of the universe maybe fine-tuned for ensoulment which we (the souls) wished for but is now all but forgotten.
Please note, your argument is novel and interesting and as far as I'm concerned the only way to counter it was to replace a benevolent god with a malus deus. You should take that as a victory in my humble opinion even if scoring points is the last thing on thy mind.
Then it's up to proponents of the fine-tuning argument for God to identify those aspects and, in an ideal case, to prove them.
Quoting Agent Smith
Thanks.
My own interpretation of an evolving world --- which has produced organisms that can wonder about how & why they exist --- is somewhere in between the All-Good & All-Bad theories of Ontology (the nature of being). It's more like the abstract LOGOS of Plato, which is neither good nor bad, but merely Logical, in the sense of Mr. Spock*1. Presumably, the First Cause -- of the effect we call "our world" -- had the creative Potential for Logos-Ethos-Pathos*2, since we find expressions of all those "forces" in our contingent reality.
Yet, since this world began in an unformed state, and is still working toward its final form, it is -- and always has been -- imperfect. Hence, we humans encounter both life-affirming and life-denying "forces". In our struggle to survive & thrive, we learn that evolution is neither all-bad nor all-good, but sometimes arduous & sometimes pleasant. So, the original cause of this heuristic experiment in gradual bottom-up construction necessarily included the possibility for ups & downs. But the net result is Neutral, some good, some bad. That's what I call BothAnd*3. Therefore, the mysterious Source of an expanding Singularity, which emerged from who-knows-where, was Creative, but not Malicious.
In that case, the current top-dogs of the sentient creature hierarchy -- half-formed homo sapiens -- are merely the beneficiaries of the evolutionary lottery, not the darlings of the deity. And we are not necessarily the ultimate inheritors of the world. Evolution seems to be only halfway to its final state. Consequently, whatever this experiment was "fine-tuned" for, is an Epistemological mystery. So, the Anthropic Argument*4 is a bit premature. But, it seems to be a good guess, based on incomplete evidence. :cool:
*1. "Logic is the beginning of wisdom ... not the end." - Spock,
*2. Logos-Ethos-Pathos :
Modes of rhetoric; persuasion.
But also modes of creation -- Reason, Intention, Emotion -- logical structure, ultimate goal, & bonding inter-relationships. The mathematical & logical structure of the world is obvious. But the end state can only be guessed from minimal evidence. Yet, what holds the evolving system together during trials & tribulations is unifying cohesion.
*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
*4. Anthropic Argument :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
BALANCE OF GOOD & EVIL
:up:
Try existing on your own outside the boundaries of atmospheric Earth.
I think the expression "hunting with the hounds and running with the hares" very nearly approximates but still fails to pin down your views regarding my comment on a malus deus. :up:
Worthless!
Thus, God almost existed.
My weltanshauung is broad in application, but narrow in focus. It's based on the single simple inference*1 that everything in this world is a form of Generic Information (EnFormAction = causal energy + directional intention). It assumes that the pin-point singularity of the Big Bang contained no matter or energy, but only omni-potential Information, in the form of a computer-like program code. Everything else resulted from the "fine-tuning" and execution (running) of that program of gradual-but-progressive-evolution. Tegmark calls that cosmic code "Mathematics". But the more comprehensive term "information" includes the possibility for all of the above : Logic, Math, Mind, Mass, Matter, Energy, etc. For me it's the abstract-primordial-fundamental Substance*2.
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but is continuously recycled. Yet, that description makes more sense with shape-shifting Information as the fundamental substance. Generic Information is the creative Potential for everything in the universe. For example : EnFormAction transforms into Energy, then into Mass, then into Matter, then into Life, then into Mind, then into Entropy (death), and the cycle begins again. That's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Probably the reason such a portmanteau concept (causation + information) is "hard to grasp" is that it's not yet part of the lexicon of Science or Philosophy. Like the non-classical theory of Quantum non-mechanics, it seems weird at first glance. But, when you get comfortable with the monistic notion that everything in the world is a form of Generic Information, it makes sense of some vexing physical & philosophical quandaries. One might even exclaim in relief, "mon Deiu!" :halo:
*1. How I arrived at that inference, based on cutting-edge Quantum & Information theories, is explained in the Enformationism Thesis. I'm not a practicing scientist or philosopher, so I don't concern myself with practical applications of this emerging understanding of reality. I merely use it as the basis of my personal philosophy as a retired layman.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
*2 Substance : "The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substanceGod or Natureis the only substance that exists."
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
"Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
"In Aristotle it is the tension between essence, which makes the individual intelligible, and existence, which gives individuation to the entity,. . ."
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/being-essence-and-substance-in-plato-and-aristotle/
Note -- Plato tended to emphasize the Essence (intelligibility), and Aristotle the Existence (material being), but both are included in the modern understanding of Information as the ability to Enform (to give meaningful-material Form to something).
Matter-Energy and Information :
[i]Statistical entropy is a probabilistic measure of uncertainty or ignorance; information is a measure
of a reduction in that uncertainty[/i]
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf
SHAPE-SHIFTING INFORMATION
Your theory, I realize, is reminiscent of how Thales thought of water as the arche & how Heraclitus declared fire was the arche. A monistic stance alright but what I don't get is why? Is it just our natural instinct to simplify despite the cost which is internal contradiction (how can light & dark be one?). Even you, an information monist, had to posit a yin-yang duality.
Thales may have been motivated by confusion, to simplify the profusion of things down to a single amorphous substance : Water, which conforms to its container. But also by the philosophical urge to generalize : to trace the plethora of specific instances back to some ultimate Source. Likewise, Plato reasoned that the manifold & various instances of reasoning beings evolved from a monistic Potential : LOGOS. In any case, there is no "internal contradiction" between the pluralistic parts, and the monistic Whole. So, I am both a Monist and a Holist, who doesn't deny the Duality of Reality. Monism is inclusive, not exclusive.
The Yin/Yang worldview acknowledges contrasting Black & White, or Good & Evil, but the enclosing circle represents the Whole, containing & organizing disparate parts into a single functioning system. Even modern Physical scientists assume that our current complex world of manifold things is the emergent offspring of an original "Singularity". And most admit that they have no idea where that Cosmic Seed came from. Plato proposed that our complex-but-orderly real world originated from primordial ideal Chaos. Which was not chaotic in the modern sense, but merely amorphous (formless), yet pregnant with the potential for all the profusion of forms in the world today.
Therefore, even I, "an information monist", was forced by innate logic to "posit a yin-yang duality" within a Holistic Monism. You can call it The One, or the Monad, or The Singularity, or G*D, or The Enformer. Whatever makes sense to you. But it all comes down to a unique concept : the Potential to Enform -- to create novel Actual forms from amorphous Omni-Potency. In the beginning there was One, and One became two, and two became four, and so-on until the world was populated by countless things, but all bearing the genetic code of the original One. :nerd:
Arche = first, beginning, origin, source, primary, primordial
Thales was the founder of the philosophy that all of Nature had developed from one source. According to Heraclitus Homericus (540480 BCE), Thales drew this conclusion from the observation that most things turn into air, slime, and earth. Thales thus proposed that things change from one form to another.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thales-of-miletus
Potential of Chaos :
"[i]The modern idea of chaossomething totally without order and seemingly disruptive by naturewas formed during Roman times.
Before that, the Greek Chaos (Khaos) was understood as a gap filled with fertile potential from which everything and anything could come.[/i]"
https://wciw.org/creativity-general/chaos-and-potential/
Potential & Actual :
[i]"Actuality and Potentiality are constrasting terms for that which has form, in Aristotles sense, and that which has merely the possibility of having form.
Actuality (energeia in Greek) is that mode of being in which a thing can bring other things about or be brought about by them, the realm of events and facts.
By contrast, potentiality (dynamis in Greek) is not a mode in which a thing exists, but rather the power to effect change, the capacity of a thing to make transitions into different states."[/i]
https://www.the-philosophy.com/actuality-potentiality-aristotle
EnFormAction = the natural power to effect change of form ; causation : energy
"The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being, the Monad or The Absolute"
"Yin and yang is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes interconnected opposite forces. In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed into objects and lives"
I'm still not clear about the rationale for monism. If eventually one has to resort to some form of dualism/pluralism, monism feels more like wishful thinking/optional than fact/necessity. Do you have anti-information (noise) as the opposite of information (signal) in your theory? :chin:
So interesting, indeed. :up: :100:
If I'm a realist about a cat and a tree, then I see both as substances, as independent entities with their own essential properties that make them what they are. A cat is not a tree, and vice versa. Therefore, there are multiple things in the world.
But if cat and tree are appearances, if they have some inner essence (wavefunction, nomeuna) which is inaccessible to us, then it's conceivable their inner essences are identical.It's conceivable that monism is true.
Wikipedia has the entry "Universe wavefunction" where "The universal wave function is the wavefunction or quantum state of the totality of existence, regarded as the "basic physical entity"[8] or "the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation."
If, in fact, there is a single, universal wavefunction which accounts for the entire universe, that would be monism, agree?
I don't claim these thoughts prove monism. I merely claim the thoughts don't rule it out; they allow that monism may be true.
You seem to be thinking in terms of scientific Reductionism, as opposed to philosophical Holism. Apparently, you are not familiar with the philosophical concept of Integrated Systems (Wholes)*1, which is essentially the same as Monism (unified parts). Part & Whole coexist simultaneously. But the Parts may be real & physical (Quanta), while the Whole is entirely ideal & metaphysical (Qualia)*2. The parts may be in opposition to each other, like electrons (negative) and protons (positive), that working together, form the neutral Whole we call an "atom". The modern atom is not the singular (uncuttable) thing imagined by Democritus. It is an identifiable system of smaller components that are bonded & inter-related in order to serve a physical function in a larger material system. If you are interested in where the modern (pre-New Age) scientific notion of Holism came from, I suggest you get a copy of the book : Holism and Evolution*3.
Regarding "anti-information", I suppose that would be what we call "False" or "Negative", while "information" is presumed to be "Truth" or "Positive". Or, in a computer analogy, Information would be a "1" (something) and anti-information would be "0" (nothing). Those ones & zeros are like matter & antimatter : when they merge, they annihilate each other into a neutral value. But, when they are linked together by logic -- analogous to the weak & strong forces in an atom -- they can work together to absorb & transmit holistic meaning from one place to another, even though they retain their original separate values. The Whole is more than the sum of the parts (Quanta); and the "more-than" is Meaning (Qualia). That immaterial Meaning may be what you are calling "wishful thinking", because it literally doesn't matter. :cool:
*1, Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems. . . .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*2. Part/Whole : I am a physical citizen of the United States (quanta - countable in a census). But the US is a complex system, composed of over 300 million parts, bound together -- in principle -- by loyalty to the ideas engraved in the Constitution. Yet, the "United States" is merely an immaterial idea (qualia) in human minds. It's not even a single place on a map, but could be a ship on the ocean flying the US flag.
*3. Holism (from Ancient Greek ???? (hólos) 'all, whole, entire', and -ism) is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
However, I don't rule out the possibility of a point of view that reconciles monism with opposites. Perhaps yours is one, but frankly speaking such is as of yet incompatible with my current worldview.
I can pardon obtuseness of ignorance, but not the bias of Materialism. :joke:
You don't "get" Monism, because you don't "grok" Holism. It's a general statistical concept, not a specific sensory physical observation ; probabilities, not actualities. For example, upon close examination, your computer screen is composed of black & white pixels. But, when you zoom-out, you no longer see individual pixels, but an average of blacks & whites, that you perceive as gray. The black & white pixels are still there, and they are still opposites in degree of light reflection (100% vs 0%). But, your brain merges & interprets those zillions of points of light & dark, as a shade of gray. The key piece of information here is "interpretation". Your senses perceive (actual) physical values, but your mind conceives (probable) metaphysical meanings.
Most of us naively assume that what we perceive is what's real. But our physical perceptions only detect abstract patterns of energy inputs of various values, light & dark. Which our brains interpret into a few common patterns we recognize as forms. Then, our rational minds interpret those forms into significance for Self. So, patterns are physical (material), but meanings are meta-physical (mental). That's why Kant concluded that we never directly see the ding an sich (ultimate Reality), but only the images of reality constructed by our sense-making minds (personal Ideality).
In terms of my personal Enformationism thesis, the basic substance of reality is the same everywhere (Potential). But it changes form in different contexts (Actual). For example, the individual pixels on your screen are physical phosphors or doped silicon, that convert electric inputs into photons of light. When those massless photons impact the retina of your eye, they transform into chemical energy, which then transforms into electrical energy, and so forth, until finally those individual inputs are merged into patterns, which the mind mysteriously transforms into non-physical meaning relative to the observer. It's all Information, all the way down. But the original isolated pixels are ignored, and only their statistical average is converted into merged holistic images that remind us of something we are already generally familiar with (meaning). So, your things are statistics and your Reality is Imaginary. :nerd:
Philosophy of Statistics :
A statistical hypothesis is a general statement that can be expressed by a probability distribution over sample space, i.e., it determines a probability for each of the possible samples.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/statistics/
Why Our Brains Do Not Intuitively Grasp Probabilities :
We are not equipped to perceive atoms and germs, on one end of the scale, or galaxies and expanding universes, on the other end.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-our-brains-do-not-intuitively-grasp-probabilities/
Note : Our language is based on physical Percepts not metaphysical Concepts. Which is why such words as "observation", "pattern", & "substance" can be confusing, unless we are careful to define what we mean in each case. In this context, "substance" does not mean material stuff, but mental ideas about stuff.
HOLISM IS STATISTICAL UNITY OF ACTUAL PLURALITY
It seems to me that you are confusing perception with a theory of perception. You begin with a questionable assumption that perception is passive reception, and thus a dualism of perception and conception. In addition, you are importing a questionable claim of metaphysical meaning that may or may not play a role in how one conceives of something seen.
Quoting 180 Proof
I.e. dual-aspect monism (or property dualism).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory
Ha! This is what I was referring to in the note about language. One way to understand the term "Monism" is as a huge Atom, with no internal parts -- just one big thing. But, as 180 pointed out, philosophers had to clear-up the confusion by creating the concept of Dialectical Monism*1. Yet, for some, it may only confuse them further, because it adds the scary notion of "transcendence". My substitute for that baggage-laden word is the equally fraught "Meta-Physics", referring to the aspects of our world that are not physical -- such as Mathematics, Logic, & Mind. They have no space-time dimensions, and are holistic (general) in their function, as immaterial connectors or links between otherwise isolated things or ideas.
When a Whole System is defined as "more than the sum of its parts", the extra piece of the puzzle is metaphysical (i.e. transcendental). It transcends Physics in the sense that it has no physical properties, except a geometric relationship. That holistic binding "force" can only be measured by its observed effects (form changes) on physical objects. [unlike the Tractor Beam in Star Trek, which is a visible ray of something like narrowly focused gravity]. The Holistic Force is more like an invisible intangible ghost that pulls heavy books off a shelf. But you can understand it metaphorically, as-if some new hypothetical physical Force appears to bond independent things into a single object. For this discussion, we can call that imaginary glue : the Systematizing Force. (Physicists also have an imaginary or metaphorical force that holds sub-atomic particles together : Gluons)*2.
Another way to "zoom out" is to first zoom in. Your desk or table appears to you as a single solid object (a whole system) with a special function : to hold your laptop off the floor. But, if you zoom-in to take a closer look, you see molecules of cellulose, held together by lignin. And their function is not to hold up laptops. Zoom-in even further, and you see various carbon & hydrogen atoms swirling around, yet again, those parts of the whole have nothing directly to do with supporting laptops. Go deeper into the queer quantum level of reality, and you find parts of your desk that are invisible to the naked eye. In fact, the atom itself is 90% empty space. And what little Matter is there, consists of mathematical Mass, that can only be defined in terms of Einstein's equation of weightless Energy with inertial Mass, multiplied by a dimensionless number "C". Energy itself is statistical potential, and its function is only to cause change in material objects by clipping-apart-or-together the bonding forces of Mass.
So yes, you have to 'zoom-in" toward the metaphysical Essence*3 of particular things, before you can appreciate the Whole, by "zooming-out" to see combined form of all those tiny-tings, bound together by the transcendental Substance of systems. And in my own thesis, both essence and substance are the same stuff : EnFormAction -- the power to cause change of form. :nerd:
*1. Dialectical Monism :
Dialectical monism, also known as dualistic monism or monistic dualism, is an ontological position that holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities, which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism
*2. Gluon :
[i] a. The meaning of GLUON is a hypothetical neutral massless particle held to bind together quarks to form hadrons.
b. an unobserved massless particle with spin 1 that is believed to transmit the strong force between quarks,[/i]
*3. Aristotle : A substantial form is the essence of a substance
Gimme time to process all that. Ciao!
"There's no time like the present".
I'm currently reading a book by theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. In a chapter entitled, Is Math All There Is, she interviewed physicist Tim Palmer, who studies the chaos of climate using AI. They made a comment that has an indirect bearing on this thread. We "independently arrived at similar conclusions about the lack of progress in the foundations of physics. We both pointed the finger at physicist's overreliance on reductionism" [bold in text] . Hence, the need for a judicious use of holistic methods to understand the mushy quantum foundations of physics. And that also applies to understanding the foggy initial conditions of the Big Bang, upon which the inference of "fine tuning" is based.
Referring to both the Big Bang and to religious creation myths, she asked "What do we mean by this word creation anyway?" She then discusses the meta-physical [my word] mathematical methods of physics. "Is an atom just mathematics? Is mathematics all that is? Or is there something, a substance or something, that makes stuff real and is not part of the modern scientific canon?" [my bold]. To that, my answer is yes : Generic Information. Just as Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with substantial Matter, I equate ideal EnFormAction with all the physical stuff of Reality. From a Reductive approach, that does not make sense. But from a Holistic perspective, it not only makes sense, it makes substance. :nerd:
PS___Take your time. With patience, a meaningful image may appear from within the noise of nonsense.
"I am not trying to advocate this . . . but you could say God created the universe as a piece of mathematics" ___mathematical physicist Tim Palmer
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those mathematical ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics its called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology its called "Conflict" or "Co-operation".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Information is :
[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
What is EnFormAction? :
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Is This a Designer Universe? :
However, another path of Logic assumes that the most important aspect of reality to non-scientists is personal Consciousness the essence of humanity which can't be adequately explained as the output of material mechanisms. So the most reasonable candidate for the source of such noumenal Qualia would be a creative mind of some kind : Mind makes minds. That's why most thinkers, until recently, have imagined their hypothetical uber-mind in allegorical terms of a bigger & better human awareness. Unfortunately, that reasonable supposition included some extra baggage in the form of human emotions that are inherent functions of the physical human body, and may not apply to discarnate spiritual entities. Which is why most philosophers, not concerned with religious myth-making, have portrayed the transcendent ultimate Mind in terms of abstract principles with no physical form, as exemplified in Brahman, Tao, Dharma, Logos, and Spinoza's Pantheistic substance.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html
IMAGE APPEARS FROM BACKGROUND NOISE
Paley's clock-maker argument is pretty much the same as the "fine-tuned" argument.
To me, reality is the computation of probability. In this way one would eventually be living. I have no idea what probability has to do with a creator. Does anyone else?
:up: Merci.
Let's discuss the binary yin-yang aspect of your theory if you don't mind. According to skepticism, pragmata (issues, topics, etc.) are adiaphora (logically undifferentiated) and for that reason both thesis & antithesis exist as part of our lives, which is true is anepikrita (undecidable). In other words in the ideaverse at least the yin-yang state of affairs is not because we possess information but because we lack information to help us determine the truth. What sayest thou?
The binary-within-unity Yin-Yang philosophy is neither Pollyanna nor Candide. It admits that "bad sh*t happens", but on-the-whole the good vs evil struggle averages-out to good-enough. Otherwise, life would be intolerable, and homo sapiens would never have survived long enough to infer generalities (wholes) from specifics (parts). So yes, Yin-Yang, and my own BothAnd worldview, are acknowledgements of the evolutionary Hegelian Dialectic : the world progresses despite conflicts & contradictions.
Our limited experience of the world, and our limited imagination of possibilities, sometimes causes us to see only the trees, and to remain ignorant of the forest. Holism -- the unifying circle around the dualistic Yin/Yang -- is not an observation, but an inference. So, it requires both factual information and counter-factual imagination. When Yin & Yang are equal, the result is harmony. But such a balanced win-win system is also "undecidable", in that there is no clear winner. In that case, win-lose Black vs White thinking is frustrated. Is that blockage due to "lack of information" or to deliberate ignorance of the other side of the equation? :nerd:
Thou Art That (Tat Tvam Asi) : relation between individual & absolute ; between part & whole
YIN + YANG = PROGRESS (please ignore the Marxist propaganda)
TRANSFORMATION = INFORMATION
One way to look at that question is to think of the physics of the Big Bang. The theory implies that a pre-existing dimensionless Singularity began in a highly improbable state of low Entropy. If you bisect a Bell Curve graph, call the left side The Past and the right side The Future. Now, place the BB Singularity at the peak of the curve, where Potential Order is maximum and Entropy is minimum. Then ask the question : how did the universe get that head-start? How did the roller-coaster get to the top of the hill? Statistically, that highly-improbable initial condition is almost impossible.
There are two ways to explain such an unlikely state of Nature. 1> An infinite Multiverse (maximum space-time-matter-energy) spawned a mini-verse by donating a bit of organizational potential. Or, 2> an eternal Mathematician imagined a game that begins in crystalline order, then proceeds to roll the dice "chanting seven-come-eleven". As luck would have it, the result was more wins (order) than losses (disorder). Thus a randomized process increased in organization and complexity, despite the thermodynamic law of Entropy. So, we can infer a counter-force that I like to call "Enformy", to convert vague possibility to likely probability, then to real actuality. :smile: :meh: :gasp:
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
I believe what you said in a previous post obtains - I'm unable to grok your theory of EnFormaction. Perhaps, like some quantum physicists claim, uncertainty (yin/true/1 OR yang/false/0) is a feature (of reality) and NOT a bug (in our epistemic methodology). Ignorance (noise) is part and parcel of knowledge (signal). Gracias, good day.
What I said was, that you seem to have a problem with Holism, the ability to see both Forest and Trees. The exclusive Either/Or Reductionism of modern Science & Philosophy is directly opposed to a more inclusive BothAnd Holistic worldview.
Uncertainty is indeed a dubious feature of our world. Yet Information is the key to reducing uncertainty, by replacing ignorance with knowledge ; or mis-information with verity. So, perhaps you are simply missing some information, that might plug the holes in your understanding of the essential & universal role of Information in the physical world. Or you may have some outdated information (intuition?) that conflicts with a novel concept (Creative Energy). Random Energy alone can be destructive (Entropy ; Noise), but Non-random Energy is constructive (Organization ; Signal). Hence, EnFormAction accounts for all of the emergent novelty of heuristic Evolution.
Actually, my coined term (EFA) is not so difficult to grok, if you are able to look at both sides of the same coin at the same time. That made-up word merely refers to the common combination of Energy & Information. For example, a guided missile is not just a bomb, but a bomb with a mandated mission. The explosive side of the missile is energetic matter, visible & tangible. But the guiding side is invisible & intangible coded information on how to seek & destroy a moving target. Just as some trained hands were necessary to put together the dangerous chemicals of the dumb bomb, a trained mind was required to organize the instructions for guiding the physical chemicals to their intended target. It's the specified intention that makes the difference between the blind bombs of WWII and Ukranian drones. De nada. :wink:
How information is related with uncertainty? :
Uncertainty is viewed as a manifestation of some information deficiency, while information is viewed as the capacity to reduce uncertainty.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0471755575.fmatter
Introduction to Enformationism :
Like Einsteins Theory of Relativity and the various theories of Quantum Mechanics, Enformationism is a simple, but counter-intuitive, concept that requires curiosity and motivation to reach a general understanding.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html
The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
I then opened it again, saw the cursor ready to display what I was gonna type. I hit the spacebar key, the cursor moved 1 space to the right. I closed the file and rechecked its size. Whaddaya know, it was now 1 byte. Even nothing is information. What do you suppose this means for your theory? I'm curious.
I think you bring up a good point about the fine tuning argument, but I also get the impression you misunderstand it. The fine tuning argument is used in natural theology to argue for the probability of a creative force or God that doesnt rely on any divine revelation. It doesnt (and cant) say anything about immortal souls. In fact, many deists use the fine tuning argument to argue for a deistic God who doesnt interfere with nature at all, but simply set it up and let (reality or simulation) run.
The way I find the fine tuning argument the most clear is using Bayes rule. For instance, say we want to estimate the joint probability P(intelligent life exists, universe supports intelligent life). I admit it seems ad hoc to define the joint probability this way initially, but doing so allows us to write P(intelligent life exists, universe supports intelligent life) = P(intelligent life exists|universe supports intelligent life)*P(universe supports intelligent life).
Now, P(intelligent life exists|universe supports intelligent life) is basically the anthropic principle. We can only observe life permitting universes, so we can estimate this as close to 1. However how can we even begin to determine the a priori probability P(universe supports intelligent life)?
If this is the only universe out there, it seems very unlikely that it should support intelligent life. This is because most probabilistic arguments reduce to uniform distributions in a base case (I.e. imagine a uniform distribution of any choice for the value of the constant of gravity, the mass of the electron, etc). If you can make an argument that allows more chances to increase (such as a multiverse, each with different properties of natural laws), or an expanding and collapsing universe with different constants each time (not sure how this would work, but lets assume it holds), then you can argue against the fine tuning argument.
If you increase the number of universe draws, you avoid the fine tuning argument because improbable events are more likely to occur with repeated trials. However, the fine tuning argument still holds weight, and this is because despite the possibility of other/repeated universes, we still have yet to observe any of them. Leslies firing squad argues that even if this is the only universe we can observe, we should still be surprised to be alive. This argument only holds strength if indeed this is the only universe we can observe.
In the end, we dont (and probably wont ever) have access to the a priori probability P(universe supports intelligent life) or knowledge about the number of trials the universe takes (what evidence would even demonstrate this?), at least not in this life. As a result, the fine tuning argument, as well as alternative explanations such as the multiverse hypothesis, are all viable philosophical conjectures. We really dont have a good way of arbitrating between these different possible scenarios. For Theism, however, the fine tuning argument can be used in conjunction with other arguments like the Kalam to create a more compelling case. My guess is this is the route apologists use (if I was an apologist, it would certainly be the route I would take).
If one takes a coherentist approach to epistemology, the fine tuning argument holds weight as a piece of an argument for God.
The fine-tuning argument is simply the successor to the idea that lightning and thunder are physical signs of God's displeasure.
A point against fine-tuning which I didn't mention is that a great deal of the surface of the Earth (oceans, deserts, top of mountains) is hostile to human life in that a unclothed human being would soon die. And in 99.999999... percent of the universe, a human being would die instantly.
In your computer, even opening & closing a file changes at least one bit in a register. So, the memory reported that change in terms of its minimum value : a byte -- indicating something changed but nothing remains. Still curious? Read on :
Claude Shannon realized the significance of Nothing. That's why his information-carrying digits are 1s & 0s : something & nothing. That nothingness-has-value is essential to my "theory". A key concept, that is also counter-intuititve, but makes sense from a BothAnd perspective, is the Power of Absence. Mathematician & Science writer Charles Seife wrote a best-seller book on the novel notion of nothing : Zero, Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Check it out.
Also, my blog post What is EnFormAction refers to Terrence Deacon's seminal book Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged From Matter, in which he introduces the eyebrow-raising concept of Causal Absence. Metaphorically, you can understand that "Gravity sucks", even though it is not a material thing or physical force. Although Gravity is merely the geometry of empty space, nothingness, it causes the whole universe to conform to its absential shape.
Since you may not click on many of the links in my posts, I have pasted part of the EFA post below, for your edification. EFA is just a post-quantum angle on the vague classical definition of Energy -- as a mysterious "ability" of Nature. EFA focuses on the power of Potential (non-actual ; virtual) and on the universality of Information (power to enform). "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", though. And absence may even be evidence for fine-tuning of the initial conditions from which our physical world emerged : Teleology -- the future end state defines the path (say what??). :nerd:
PS__Holism, which 180 mistakenly equates with pseudoscientific "woo", also includes undetectable, but inferrable, meta-physical Absence as a binding force of multi-part organizations : Systems Theory.
"In physics Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science
PPS__Incidentally, in Chinese, "woo" means "none". And "woo-woo" refers to ghosts. Ni hao!
EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. Its more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that pull stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that spooky action at a distance works may be best explained by Terrence Deacons definition of Absence.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
What is EnFormAction? :
[i]Literally, the act of enforming --- to fashion, to create, to cause.
1. Metaphorically, the Will of G*D flowing through the world to cause evolutionary change in a teleological direction.
2. Immaterial Information is almost always defined in terms of its physical context or material container. (e.g. mathematical DNA code in chemical form)
3. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
5. Information is the Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.[/i]
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
EFFECTIVENESS OF EMPTINESS
True. And yet, on a blue speck of dust, in a remote arm of a minor galaxy, in the midst of millions of apparently lifeless galaxies, against impossible odds, something unusual happened. Dust became Life, and Life became Mind, and Mind is on the verge of populating the solar system, by making uninhabitable places conform to its needs. Obviously, the gambling odds against such a cosmic accident are astronomical (bet on the underdog : take Accident plus 999999999 points).
So, the initial conditions of our world were undoubtedly "special", But does that mean "specified"? In the absence of a "smoking gun", your interpretation of the circumstantial evidence is necessarily subjective, and may be biased by prior beliefs (glass half empty vs half full?). Nevertheless, philosophically -- on the face of it -- does this set-up sound more like a cosmic accident, or a divine miracle, or just Nature being creative? :joke:
The arrow of time and the initial conditions of the universe :
The existence of a thermodynamic arrow of time in the present universe implies that the initial state of the observable portion of our universe at (or near) the big bang must have been very special.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219806000396
Fine-tuning is a scientific observation, but why? is a philosophical question :
Even atheistic scientists have been baffled and fascinated by the Cosmological Coincidences they encounter as they scan the physical universe. Puzzling over the practical implications of a variety of otherwise meaningless dimensionless ratios, some of those seekers reached an intriguing interpretation. It appears that those abstract aspects of the universes structure imposed conditions necessary to generate observers. Which raised the non-scientific, but philosophical question, why? Was the eventual emergence of questioning creatures merely an accidental effect of random evolution? Or was the creation of homo sapiens intentional?
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page16.html
PALE BLUE DOT AS SEEN FROM SATURN
:up:
Yep.
The argument appeals to those who believe there must be a reason for our existing. i.e.those who don't like the idea that we're accidents.They overlook the improbability that they are the improbable product of a particular sperm fertilizing a particular ovum, each produced by parents produced in the same improbable way (all the way back through an improbable specific evolutionary history).
Si, nothing is information (message, 1 byte in a text doc) and also carries information (medium, 0/off the binary opposite of 1/on).
If that's the case, I feel that everything is, in line with your theory, information. In other words "O bits/bytes" never applies!?
However the amount of info in a message T, given 4 equiprobable possibilities (C, A, T, G) as in DNA is given by the formula log[sub]2[/sub]4 = 2 bits. That means if there's only 1 possibility, say message w, then the information content of w itself is log[sub]2[/sub]1 = 0 bits.
From a pre-Shannon perspective, everything is information - 0 bits is impossible - but from a Shannon point of view 0 bits is possible - it is the information content of a message w that has only 1 possibility viz. w itself. Everything ain't information. It's quite a puzzle.
Yes. The realization that "everything is information" was the insight that led me to the Enformationism thesis. Others have come to a similar conclusion. For example, physicist Max Tegmark has developed a hypothesis that everything in the universe is Mathematics, as in the coded programs running on the Matrix. I agree, to a degree. But Mathematics is completely abstract, and seems to need something else to put flesh on the bones. In my thesis, that "something extra" is Intention or Direction. That's what causes a coded program to "seek" an answer to a specific problem. In the case of our universe, I don't know what the Ultimate Question was. But, from our position in the middle of the calculation, it seems to be about Complexity & Consciousness.
In Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the protagonist asked the most powerful computer of the 1950s, Multivac, "how can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" [Note : decreased Entropy means increased Order, and I call that anti-entropy principle : Enformy -- the power to enform; to increase order ; to make something where before there was nothing.] Unfortunately, the computer popped a few vacuum tubes, and wearily replied : "insufficient data for a meaningful answer". And that's what the anti-fine-tuning posters are saying, implicitly. Because, they are not aware of the power of Absence.
When you said "0 bits/bytes never applies", you are ignoring the fact that binary computer codes use just as many zeros as ones [see below]. The ancient Greeks abhorred the notion of Nothingness. Hence, their math had no place for Zeros. So, it took centuries for mathematicians to realize that math was much easier to do, if you included a symbol for Nothing. That symbol had no positive or negative value, so it served only as a placeholder. In other words, the Zero was a symbol of un-actualized Potential. And the power of Potential is still under-appreciated to this day. Yet, even materialist physicists were forced to conclude that the vacuum of space is not nothing. It has the inherent Potential for energy & particles. Hence, empty Space is just a placeholder. And Zero sometimes "applies" to Reality. :nerd:
Power of Absence :
[i]Terrence Deacon's 2011 book, goes into great detail to create a plausible hypothesis for solving the mystery of how living organisms suddenly emerged on Earth, after billions of years of spatial expansion & material aggregation had managed to build only simple inorganic chemical systems that strictly obeyed the zero-sum 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Those structures, such as stars, converted raw energy into lifeless lumps of matter that did little to slow the astronomical waste of energy known as Entropy. So what's the difference between stars and the organic chemistry we now know as Biology? What changed a zero-sum world into a non-zero (positive) environment suitable for human habitation?
Deacon thinks the answer is Constraints, which are not physical fences, but metaphysical patterns of Potential. He calls these statistical opportunities Absences, because they are merely empty spaces that can be filled by actual things ? like those in a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle solver that decides what will fit those gaps is active Information (e.g. natural selection). In terms of my Enformationism thesis, Information (passive) is stored or constrained energy (potential), and Enformation (active) is directed or channeled energy (kinetic). Information can be stored in a mind as meaning, or in a battery as electric potential. EnFormAction is energy "flowing" in an organized system. Organs are channels for energy flow, or corrals for storage. Organisms redirect energy for their own purposes.[/i]
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
BINARY REALITY IS BUILT ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOMETHING & NOTHING
Does your theory quantify information like Claude Shannon's does? I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Lemme ask again: Is there any message in Enformationism whose information content is 0 (bits)? Explain both yes and no answers to that question ... please.
I did answer your question, not with scientific quantitative data, but with philosophical qualitative "absence". Unfortunately, even Qualia would have to be quantified into 1s & 0s, in order to transmit it over the internet. Unless, of course, you just feel what I feel. It's a both-Yes-and-No answer. "You feel me?"
Feel me [i]is a term used to see if someone understands what you are talking about.
Example #1
Some guy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you feel me?
Another guy: Yeah.[/i]
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feel%20Me
Dig me : Get where I'm coming from.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dig%20me
Note -- "Grok" is another term for qualitative understanding.
On a topic more closely related to the OP, "Holism" is not quantifiable, because it is not reducible to particular isolated atoms or bits -- electrons & grains of sand are interchangeable, but the whole system is unique (one of a kind). Entropy fragments, but Enformy unifies.
I'm currently reading a book by German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder : Existential Physics. In which she explains some physical concepts from a philosophical perspective. Today's chapter is entitled : "Are you just a bag of atoms?". She claims that she is "not a reductionist hardliner". but then admits : "If you say 'holism", I hear 'bullshit' ". The chapter is about Reductionism vs Holism, and Monism vs Dualism. So, she admits to a professional prejudice : "having said that, as a particle physicist by training, I have to inform you that the available evidence tells us that the whole is the sum of the parts, not more and not less." [emphasis in text]
However, a bit of Holism sneaks in by the back door. She discusses the scientific method of "coarse graining", in which "irrelevant information" is discarded via abstraction. But, what's irrelevant to a pragmatic scientist may be essential to a speculative philosopher. At the end of the chapter, she summarizes her answer to the topical question. "the characteristic features of a creature or object are the relations and interactions among many constituent particles, not the particles themselves." Ironically, that is a concise definition of Holism : what makes a whole system is not a pile of parts, like grains of sand, but the relations & interactions that bind those loose grains into a solid block of concrete. You could quantify the millions of grains of sand, but there is only one whole concrete block. "You dig me?". :joke:
PS___"Relations" are mental, not physical. And "interactions" are functional, not material.
EnFormAction :
Platos Forms were described, not as things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios and relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
How many bits (of information) is absence? A hint: Any letter in the English alphabet e.g. "a" is 1 byte in Windows text document. Even empty space (absence) " " is 1 byte.
By the way, arigato gozaimus for the patience you've shown me as you walk me through this.
I.e. map =/= territory.
Given enough rope, Gnomon might hang you both ...
Apparently, you are trying to make the holistic Enformationism thesis fit neatly into Shannon's particular Information theory. Shannon was a Reductive engineer, whose interest was in numerical carrying capacity instead of conceptual meaning. But my philosophical interest is in the personally significant contents, not the empty container. Focusing on the abstract numbers misses the whole point of Information Communication. It's the emptiness (absence) inside the container that has functional human value (to convey meaning). Therefore, I wouldn't worry about insignificant bits when the OP question is about philosophical arguments for a Cosmic Creator. [??bits & bytes ]
Information : Shannon vs Deacon :
[i]Originally, the word information referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory was on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks.
Now, Terrence Deacons book about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe. Claude Shannons Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.[/i]
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html
PS__Be careful how you hang around with Freethinkers on this forum. is the self-appointed Chief Heresy Inquisitor. And he might hang us both with our own rope : personal opinions.
Dou itashimashite :cool:
We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
___Benjamin Franklin
Since you sincerely asked the question, I'll answer it, from the Shannon perspective, with a quote from Quanta magazine :
[i]"If someone tells you a fact you already know, theyve essentially told you nothing at all. Whereas if they impart a secret, its fair to say something has really been communicated.
This distinction is at the heart of Claude Shannons theory of information. Introduced in an epochal 1948 paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, it provides a rigorous mathematical framework for quantifying the amount of information needed to accurately send and receive a message, as determined by the degree of uncertainty around what the intended message could be saying.
Which is to say, its time for an example.
In one scenario, I have a trick coin its heads on both sides. Im going to flip it twice. How much information does it take to communicate the result? None at all, because prior to receiving the message, you have complete certainty that both flips will come up heads."[/i]
www.quantamagazine.org
/how-claude-shannons-concept-of-entropy-quantifies-information-20220906/
Technically, this example is not about "Absence" (0 bits) but about "Certainty" (1 bit). But, if you already possess the information, its additional value is zero, nothing, nada, absentio. :smile:
I won't waste yer time anymore. I hope I can visit your blog for more information! See ya. Good day.
Quantification & mathematical modeling are necessary for acceptance of theories of physical (material) science. But, Enformationism is primarily a theory of meta-physical (mental) science. Shannon was able to quantify his theory of Information by ignoring its meta-physical meaning. That's useful for physical transmission of abstract symbols -- like numbers & letters -- but useless for conveying meaning & feeling. You understand the real-world-referrent of words typed-out on your screen, only because you already know their semiotic significance. Shannon's symbols only remind you of what you have stored away as personal connotation.
Shannon's quantified Information left meaning behind, and only transmitted conventional coded symbols, like Morse Code -- learned by education, not from electrons. Anyone who can't understand the philosophical significance of that difference, shouldn't be posting on a philosophy forum. But, I suspect you're just being swayed by the aggressive physical-philosophy-faction on the forum. They believe that metaphysical Philosophy has been made obsolete by physical Science. And yet, here we are, debating ideas that don't add-up to a round number. Information must overcome uncertainty, not with numerical superiority, but with conceptual understanding.
The closest anyone has come to quantifying Information theory is Tononi's Integrated Information Theory. If you want numbers, look at his website. But, the numbers he comes up with are associated with the physical underpinnings of Consciousness, not with Awareness itself. The ding an sich of Consciousness will always remain in the realm of noumena, not of numbers. However, Generic Information is not limited to immaterial Ideas & Thoughts; it also crosses over into Actions & Things, and Mind & Life. Which makes it difficult to pin-down to a traditional scientific category, and almost impossible to quantify. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you feel about "The Fine-Tuning Argument"?
I'm an amateur philosopher, with no academic connections. So, my personal "theory" has not been submitted for official vetting. It is only offered for free online, and in forum posts, for non-numerical philosophical critique : the Socratic Dialog, not Mathematical Calculus. As befits The Philosophy Forum, it deals with Qualia, not Quanta. The only criteria is whether it makes sense to you. Anyway, you're not wasting my time. You ask good challenging questions. That's the whole point of posting on a philosophical forum. And we don't get graded on a curve. :nerd:
Integrated Information Theory is one of the leading models of consciousness. It aims to describe both the quality and quantity of the conscious experience of a physical system, such as the brain, in a particular state.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2020.602973/full
Note -- IIT has had more success with Quantifying the physical system, than for Qualifying the meaning or feeling of the information.
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or an event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. ___Wikipedia
CAN YOU GROK THIS SHANNON INFORMATION?
WHERE'S THE MEANING? HOW DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL?
On it! Danke!
Exactly! Shannon was not an experimenting knowledge-seeking scientist, he was a pragmatic solution-seeking engineer. So his concern was about as far from feckless philosophy as you can get. Moreover, once-dominant Philosophy -- among intellectuals at least -- has been plagued with an inferiority*1 complex --- ever since younger sibling Science has become richer and more famous. Nevertheless, even some scientists still see a need for the wider scope of Philosophy to keep near-sighted Science from straying into dangerous territory.
The author of my current book, Sabine Hossenfelder, is a theoretical physicist, hence closer to a philosopher than her hands-on fellows, smashing atoms in a cyclotron. Speaking as a credentialed scientist though, she says "philosophy is where our knowledge ends, and the scientific method is no exception". So, philosophy picks-up where science cannot go. For example the fine-tuning "argument", although based on scientific evidence, is not a scientific theory. And beyond presenting a long list of coincidental dimensionless numbers as evidence, it may never be fully quantified. In other words, it's a philosophical "argument" not a scientific "theory".
In her interview with prominent physicist David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality, they discuss the "limits of Reductionism", both scientific "theory reductionism" and philosophical "ontological reductionism". For example, he asks "if the atoms can't be subdivided, how come they have different properties? . . . . there has to be an underlying structure". The "structure" he's referring to is not physical, but meta-physical, and the "properties" are inferred Qualia, not observed Quanta. That's why, in the 21st century, the fundamental "atom" is portrayed as a universal foggy field of influence instead of a compact condensed particle.
Deutsch himself has proposed a "Constructor Theory"*2 to explain the concept of a universal Turing computer. But reductive opponents reject the idea, mostly because it seems to imply deterministic teleology. And that's also the scientific objection to the philosophical argument for "fine tuning" of initial conditions, which seem to be "programmed" to evolve living & thinking creatures. Of course, there is no reductive scientific way to prove that theory, because you would have to go outside the universe to look at it objectively. But philosophers do that kind of generalizing & universalizing all the time. They just can't prove it or quantify it.
Although Hossenfelder carefully avoids using touchy terms like "Holism" and "Metaphysics", the whole point of this chapter is to reveal the philosophically restrictive limits of Reductionism & Physicalism. Apparently, Deutsch is not quite so careful, because he says, in summing up : "and this is my view of the role of particle physics, reductionism, and holism". [my emphasis] The advantage of quantitative reductive methods is that it produces saleable products : physical stuff with added value : like a foldable phone screen, made possible by lab-laboring scientists. Sadly, the only product of qualia-questing pencil-pushing Philosophy is life-enhancing Wisdom. :nerd:
*1. Why exactly is philosophy considered inferior to science in terms of predicting power? :
[i]The goal of philosophy is NOT predictive power.
This is another of those presumptuous questions one often finds on Quora.
One might as well ask, Why exactly is music considered inferior to mathematics in terms of enjoyment-potential?[/i]
https://www.quora.com/Why-exactly-is-philosophy-considered-inferior-to-science-in-terms-of-predicting-power
*2. Constructor Theory :
"The goal of constructor theory is to rewrite the laws of physics in terms of general principles that take the form of counterfactuals"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/with-constructor-theory-chiara-marletto-invokes-the-impossible-20210429/
"Constructor theory 'has a radically different mode of explanation, where the main objects are physical transformations, or tasks.' "
https://turingchurch.net/thoughts-on-david-deutschs-constructor-theory-7be91dca4a92
"Transformations" are the result of en-formation. Which is how Generic Information functions as causal Energy. "Counterfactuals" are hypothetical statements that are not actual, but serve to express a philosophical concept.
My last post on the Quantum Mechanics . . . etc thread*1 is relevant to the OP of this thread on Fine Tuning. It offers a philosophical postulate for how the "fine-tuning" information of the Big Bang could have gotten into the initial Singularity. As a thought experiment : What kind of "Programmer" do you suppose could have encoded those set-up criteria into a pre-space-time register made of nothing but Potential? :chin:
PS__The OP seemed to be pointing out a flawed assumption in the biblical description of creation, not so much about "fine tuning" per se, but about divine intentions.
*1. Quantum Mechanics, Monism, Isness, Meditation
<< Most physicists, though, treat the original Singularity either 1> as-if it just accidentally happened, "something from nothing for no reason", or 2> as-if it was just a recycling of old worlds through the garbage grinder of pre-historic Black Holes. But in my Enformationism thesis, I give it a philosophical definition, based on Information Theory. There, I treat that pin-point-of-potential as-if it was the DNA from which space-time was created, and then filled with the stuff we see around us." >>
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/738021
Ontology : How did the world come to be? How did Information come to be?
Registers are a type of computer memory, a container for information.
The degree of fine-tuning in our universe and others :
Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately support life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157319300511
ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS :
[i]A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause[/i]
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
I'm not sure which "fine tuning argument" you are referring to, but the Anthropic Cosmological argument makes a completely different assertion : mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves. If that is a true statement, then "if things were different", Fooloso4 would not be here to point-out the circularity of some religious arguments. :smile:
The Anthropic Principle may be a remarkable starting point, allowing us to place constraints on the Universe's properties owing to the fact of our existence, but that is not a scientific solution in and of itself.
____Ethan Seigel
Yes. It's an unprovable philosophical postulate for rational rumination.
Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . ., as implied by Darwins Theory of Evolution, but that, the universe is adapted to man. He goes on to assert the central point of the anthropic principle, that a life-giving factor² lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world. He made that assertion, despite knowing that design is a dirty word in the vocabulary of most scientists
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
The only book I read that discusses the fine-tuning argument is Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers - the gist of the book is that 6 physical constants have values that make life possible with very little margin for error. Even the smallest deviation from measured values would mean a lifeless, barren universe.
I can imagine a creator (programmer) adjusting the dials of, i.e. feeding in information into, a hypercomputer and hitting the right notes so to speak to generate a simulation (the cosmos, our cosmos).
As for the limits of reductionism, I'd say reductionism has a good track record e.g. protein function is well-explained by its secondary/tertiary structure which in turn is fully explicated by its primary structure and that by the properties of constituent molecules & atoms.
However, life feels more than just a complex chemical reaction. I subscribe to some form of emergentism which to my reckoning is the position that an additional ontological level arises from but is more than the level below it, complete with its own set of laws. What I mean is true, there's brain (bio)chemistry that follow all the laws of chemical reaction, but thinking & thoughts are a world in itself, distinct from their chemical basis, and the laws of thought are unique to that level, the level of consciousness (mind). To illustrate, a triangle is reducible to three 1D sides, but a triangle is a 2D object and as a triangle follows different rules [it can, for example, generate a rainbow (prism, Newton)] than a line.
Yes. But those abstract ratios have little meaning for the average person. It's the metaphorical interpretation that makes the difference. In that case, someone already inclined toward the concept that the world is not a barren hostile environment, but a milieu favorable for human flourishing, will tend to interpret the ambiguous evidence as a "glass half full". Yet, someone else, who already feels the world is antagonistic to their own personal flourishing, may logically infer a universe "going to hell in a hand cart". As you said, it only takes the "smallest deviation" (in interpretation) to turn a positive value to negative. That's why soft metaphorical Philosophy, unlike hard empirical Science, is always debatable. So, each of us has to make his own personal interpretation. Mine leans toward "half full", but is technically BothAnd.
Quoting Agent Smith
This very morning, I read in Existential Physics, that "without quantum mechanics, the laws of nature are deterministic". And, I might add : Reductive. Yet, when we look at the foundations of physics, Determinism & Reductionism seem to transform (illogically) into Probability & Holism. To which, Einstein objected that (his classical) "God doesn't play dice". In her book, Hossenfelder discusses the "double slit" experiment as the crux of quantum "weirdness". But it's merely a matter of interpretation. For instance, if you (reductively) imagine a single particle passing through two slits at the same time, it doesn't make classical (reductive) sense. But, if instead you imagine the particle entangled in a holistic ocean of statistical probability, then it looks like normal wave behavior. So, the paradoxes of Quantum Weirdness arise due to the conflicting metaphors we imagine, not from any contradictions in reality.
Quoting Agent Smith
Yes. Those "ontological levels" are metaphors for emergent behaviors in physics. In my thesis, I use the term "Phase Transition" to illustrate how a continuous process can seem to be a sudden transformation, from one state-of-being (e.g. fluid water) to something with completely different observed properties (crystalline ice or ethereal gas). The transformation is not magic, but merely emergent. And Emergence is a holistic (systemic) phenomenon. The (reductive) parts (H2O) remain the same, but their (holistic) system behavior is objectively different.
From Hossenfelder's discussion, it occurred to me that spooky-entanglement-at-a-distance, and holistic-ontological-level-superposition are not so weird, if we just view them as descriptions of mathematical sums instead of physical particles. To be specific, the Wave Function merely describes the probable future state (ontological level) of an integrated system. A "function' is just a mathematical statement of a (holistic) group interrelationship. By using The Calculus method, we compute the sum of all points below a curve via the technique of Integration. The individual points are still there, but they have been integrated into a system, from which we can extract an average (holistic) value. I suppose this is also the mathematical basis of Integrated Information Theory.
What does all this have to do with the OP? Merely, that some view the Big Bang, and subsequent Evolution, as the behavior of isolated particles, instead of an integrated system. The particles may behave (reductively) randomly, but the (holistic) process behaves as an interrelated system, guided by natural laws and initial conditions toward some ultimate Ontological State. If we could do the math, we might even be able to compute that Final State. :nerd:
What a reductionist thing to say? :smirk:
No. It was a conditional (if) statement. A confident Reductionist (see below) would say that, given complete information, we can compute the future. But a diffident Holist could say that we can't possibly compute the destiny of the universe, because it's not that simple. We can't even predict the weather more than a week ahead.
That's because the evolutionary system of Nature does not just replicate initial conditions, it produces Novelty. Where, in the inferred laws & measured constants, do we find any implications for Life or Mind? Perhaps, the secret sauce is hidden, not in fine-tuning of abstract numbers, but in the intention behind the enumeration. And a positive inclination may be inferred from the direction chosen by Natural Selection : not toward maximum Entropy, but toward second-law-denying Complexity & Integration. So far, after 14 billion cycles, it's obvious that the computation of those pre-set conditions has not "added up to nothing".
Speaking of intended consequences, the quest of Science is to "know the mind of God", as Stephen Hawking expressed it. He was confident that we would attain that enigmatic knowledge by the end of the 21st century. But Scientific American writer, John Horgan, interviewed a wide range of scientists for his book, The End of Science, in which he concluded that "the scientific age is in its twilight, because we have already discovered all the major things about the world there is to know". So, which prophet do you think is correct : the reductive optimist, or the show-me-the-money pessimist?
Pick your numbers now, and the lucky winner of the God-Mind lottery will be revealed in a few billion earth years, give or take. Meanwhile, the improbable emergence of Man-Mind seems to be the high-point of blind rambling meta-morphing Evolution, to date. :joke:
Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".
? Stephen Hawking
My prediction is that we will know the mind of God by the end of this century." According to Hawking, who died in March, the universe is the ultimate free lunch and if the universe adds up to nothing, then you don't need a God to create it.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/theres-no-god-no-one-directs-our-fate-says-stephen-hawking-in-final-book/articleshow/66273272.cms?from=mdr
No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the atemporal, of being and becoming. And no subject conforms this paradoxical conjunction more starkly than the origin of the universe.
? Paul Davies, The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World
PS__No attempt by 180 to present a philosophical counter-argument, just a supercilious "smirk". :smirk:
My friend is kind; my friend is unkind. Contradiction.
My friend sometimes behaves in a kind way; my friend sometimes behaves in an unkind way. No contradiction.
If we think in terms of is, i.e., noumena, we have a contradiction. If we think in a phenomenological way, we do not.
I made a similar point in my Against is thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13370/against-is/p1
I wouldn't be quite so bold. But, if you imagine the Superposition postulate as an integrated Holistic state, instead of an undecided lonely particle, you can reconcile both before & after in terms of Potential & Actual. Some people have difficulty making a distinction between specific "Potential" & general "Possible". "Possible" only means that some future state is not impossible, perhaps because it doesn't violate any known laws of nature. But "potential" implies that the future state is not only possible, but statistically likely to occur. That's because the particle's historical path can be projected into the future, to see if its trajectory passes through a particular future point on the curve. Like any conjecture about the future, unanticipated forces could alter the path. That's why statistical predictions are not divinely-inspired prophecies, but merely mathematically-calculated guesses.
However, some quantum physicists took the mysterious notion of Superposition to imply multiple simultaneous levels of Reality. But that's not what BothAnd means. It simply says that in order to see the whole truth, you need to look at both sides of the same coin. That's not a logical contradiction, but a complementary perspective. And the "looking" is mental, not physical. As the name implies, the BothAnd worldview looks for the whole truth, not just the part I'm most familiar with, or that suits my expectations. Viewed that way, in hypothetical Superposition there is no Actual particle, only the reasonable expectation (Potential) for a future manifestation of mathematical Probability. Comprenez-vous?
While discussing Many Worlds & Multiverse & Inflation theories, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder remarked on the belief that "all possible values exist somewhere in a multiverse". She pointed out that we don't know, and cannot know, those "possible" values, because they are not Actual values. Hence, such imaginary extrapolations from Superposition, are "pure conjecture". Those "beliefs" are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". That term also applies to any Philosophical conjectures that are not grounded in falsifiable physical facts. And it includes my own speculations on the possible Cause of pre-Big-Bang initial conditions, that limited the future path of evolution for a world governed by restrictive laws and definitive constants.
The BothAnd worldview has a place for both Science and Philosophy. But some people have difficulty distinguishing between freewheeling Philosophy and buttoned-down Science. Philosophy is only limited by Logic, while Science is restricted by Evidence. So, in Hossenfelder's term, philosophical conjectures are not necessarily wrong, but merely "ascientific". However, the best scientists & philosophers (e. g. Einstein and Hossenfelder herself) look at both sides. But they are careful not to be misled by their own illusions. :cool:
Both Sides Now
[i]I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all[/i]
___Joni Mitchell
First let me confess I don't fully understand what you'rr trying to get at.
That outta the way, my understanding of the multiverse, why it was posited, involves the resloution of the contradiction Schrödinger's cat being both dead and alive. An additional universe is necessary so that in one the cat is alive and in the other it is dead. An ingenious solution if you ask me. Philosophers can learn a thing or two from quantum physicists. Imagine this hypothetical solution for the liar's paradox, paradoxes in general: In one universe it's true and in another universe it's false, never is it true and false in one universe. The same applies to all true paradoxes (contradictions) i.e. a new universe is spawned to accommodate them; necessarily so in my humble opinion. Intriguing, oui monsieur?
Again, you have put your finger on the reason why you don't understand the BothAnd concept. Schrodinger's thought experiment was not intended to be taken literally, but metaphorically. A physical cat that is both dead and alive, would indeed be a paradox. But the idea of something that seems to be both a wave and a particle is simply confusion, not contradiction. If you shift your perspective a bit, you can see that the wave function describes a Potential statistical state, not an Actual physical object. And the act of measurement does not magically split the universe into two miniverses. That's simply an as-if metaphor that some people take literally. Perhaps because they don't grok the difference between mathematical statistical averages, and actual physical objects.
Superposition is an imaginary state described by mathematics, while Measured Position is a physical location in the only universe we can take the measure of in standard real world units. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder sums-it-up with, it's an example of "what can go wrong with using intuitive language for abstract math . . . . And that's what superposition is : a sum . . . . So where did all the fabled weirdness go?". Most, if not all apparent paradoxes result from taking imaginative metaphors as descriptions of reality. Metaphors are useful in Science and Philosophy, as thought experiments, but they are not actual physical observations. Using the BothAnd method, you can look at both aspects of a paradox, to determine which is Ideal, and which is Real. Or as Hossenfelder puts it : ascientific or scientific. Speculative philosophy, and conjectural metaphors, are ascientific, until proven otherwise. Not necessarily wrong, just unproven, and perhaps unproveable. :smile:
Ideality vs Reality :
Matter & Literal (physical) exist in Reality, but Mind & Metaphors exist in Ideality
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of virtual particles in a mathematical field, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
PS__Like Yin-Yang, the BothAnd philosophy does not require you to accept Black as White, or Evil as Good, It merely suggests that you look for the moderate gray or OK area in between the extremes.
:chin:
Not true! My BothAnd principle can "go" to both Wave and Particle, and to both sides of a coin. Just not at the same time. It's like Superman & Clark Kent are never seen in the same place at the same time. :joke: