Matter and Patterns of Matter
I will now present my ontological view for everyone to have fun tearing down. I don't know if this ontology has a name already but if it does please tell me.
It is a dualist ontology, but not substance (ew), or property dualism. I believe that what exists is matter, and patterns of matter.
A pattern is not a material thing. Think of a sin wave. You will never find a sin wave in nature. You may find things that have the rough shape of a sin wave, but never the pattern of a sign wave itself. Sort of like Plato's forms. Difference being that there is no heirarchy of patterns, and no "pattern of patterns". Patterns can also be seen as collections of properties. The difference from property dualism is that there patterns are neither "mental" nor "physical".
One material thing can have many patterns, but not any combination of patterns is possible (no square triangles). Also, patterns can contain other patterns, like how quadrilaterals contain squares. Material things are always instantiations of certain patterns. So a box is an instantiation of a hollow cube. Instantiations never perfectly match the pattern.
In this view, consciousness is a specific range of patterns of matter. When the pattern of our bodies is disturbed enough (such as in sleep, or death) we leave the range where we would be considered conscious. The range is rather fuzzy when you take into consideration drugs and half-asleep states, etc. Emotions and experiences are also patterns of matter. But again, we seem to have loose definitions to all of these things for now.
When someone says something is caused by a pattern they mean that it was caused by the material instantiation of the pattern. For example: "I hit him because I was angry" means that the pattern of "anger" when instantiated in the form of flesh and blood (assuming the speaker is human), resulted in a physical movement that roughly matches the pattern "hit". So patterns aren't present in the causal chain, but are still extremely important for causation (if the person in the above example had the pattern "happy" instead he probably wouldn't have hit anyone)
Patterns aren't limited to the ones we find. The pattern of a quadrliatiral would exist even if no one discovered shapes with 4 sides.
Some consequences to popular problems:
1- No mind body problem. When someone says a physical thing was caused by a "mental" thing it means that the physical thing was caused by the material instantiation of the pattern that is the mental thing.
2- BUT minds and bodies are still fundamentally different and irreducible to each other, best of both worlds! Minds are patterns and bodies are matter.
3- Anything can be conscious, not just humans. We will figure out how things are conscious just as soon as we precisely define what the pattern "conscious" means (which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon).
4- Free will exists. Since "we" are the patterns that our bodies are instantiated from, we "cause" (defined above) our actions. So there is also room for moral accoutnability and ethics.
5- If a teleporter evaporated all of your particles and reassebled you again very far away it would still be you because "you" is the pattern, not the particles. And if you were not evaporated there would be two idnetical "yous". Also other sci-fi cliches such as "upload my consciousness to the net" make sense in this view.
It is a dualist ontology, but not substance (ew), or property dualism. I believe that what exists is matter, and patterns of matter.
A pattern is not a material thing. Think of a sin wave. You will never find a sin wave in nature. You may find things that have the rough shape of a sin wave, but never the pattern of a sign wave itself. Sort of like Plato's forms. Difference being that there is no heirarchy of patterns, and no "pattern of patterns". Patterns can also be seen as collections of properties. The difference from property dualism is that there patterns are neither "mental" nor "physical".
One material thing can have many patterns, but not any combination of patterns is possible (no square triangles). Also, patterns can contain other patterns, like how quadrilaterals contain squares. Material things are always instantiations of certain patterns. So a box is an instantiation of a hollow cube. Instantiations never perfectly match the pattern.
In this view, consciousness is a specific range of patterns of matter. When the pattern of our bodies is disturbed enough (such as in sleep, or death) we leave the range where we would be considered conscious. The range is rather fuzzy when you take into consideration drugs and half-asleep states, etc. Emotions and experiences are also patterns of matter. But again, we seem to have loose definitions to all of these things for now.
When someone says something is caused by a pattern they mean that it was caused by the material instantiation of the pattern. For example: "I hit him because I was angry" means that the pattern of "anger" when instantiated in the form of flesh and blood (assuming the speaker is human), resulted in a physical movement that roughly matches the pattern "hit". So patterns aren't present in the causal chain, but are still extremely important for causation (if the person in the above example had the pattern "happy" instead he probably wouldn't have hit anyone)
Patterns aren't limited to the ones we find. The pattern of a quadrliatiral would exist even if no one discovered shapes with 4 sides.
Some consequences to popular problems:
1- No mind body problem. When someone says a physical thing was caused by a "mental" thing it means that the physical thing was caused by the material instantiation of the pattern that is the mental thing.
2- BUT minds and bodies are still fundamentally different and irreducible to each other, best of both worlds! Minds are patterns and bodies are matter.
3- Anything can be conscious, not just humans. We will figure out how things are conscious just as soon as we precisely define what the pattern "conscious" means (which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon).
4- Free will exists. Since "we" are the patterns that our bodies are instantiated from, we "cause" (defined above) our actions. So there is also room for moral accoutnability and ethics.
5- If a teleporter evaporated all of your particles and reassebled you again very far away it would still be you because "you" is the pattern, not the particles. And if you were not evaporated there would be two idnetical "yous". Also other sci-fi cliches such as "upload my consciousness to the net" make sense in this view.
Comments (63)
Assuming that matter can exist mind-independently, do patterns of matter exist only in the mind or can they exist mind-independently ?
All patterns exist independently of anything.
Also your question would be akin to "Can patterns exist independently of pattern A" since minds are patterns in my view.
Quoting RussellA
Also, since there are no patterns of patterns, and there is only patterns and matter, then this would be a useless distinction in my view. patterns can ONLY be of matter, they can't be of anything else.
A pattern is a repeated relationship between its parts. If there was no relation between the parts, then the pattern wouldn't exist.
For patterns to exist, relations must exist. How do you justify the belief that relations exist, ie, that relations ontologically exist.
What exactly does "no relation" mean when it comes to material things? Let's take the pattern "on top of". Any 2 material things can be on top of each other as long as we specify a direction. If I stack 2 boxes they are on top of each other. If I set one down next to the other, then they are no longer on top of each other, but now they fit the pattern "next to".
My point being that since material things have a location, they are always related at least when it comes to their locations relative to each other. I don't see how 2 material things can have no relation whatsoever, no pattern that they fit.
Even "located 32 kilometers away from each other" is a pattern for example, one many pairs of things emobdy no less, just one that we haven't deemed useful enough to make a word for.
Quoting RussellA
But I'm curious what made you ask in the first place. Why would justifying the existence of relations be a task for my view specifically? How would a materialist or substance dualist justify it for example? Seems like such a building block concept.
It wouldn't be if "patterns of matter" existed only in the mind, but you also say that "All patterns exist independently of anything", and " The pattern of a quadrilateral would exist even if no one discovered shapes with 4 sides", inferring that patterns also exist in a mind-independent world.
I agree that all material things have a location, and when we observe material things we can observe a relation between them, so relations do exist in the mind. So, patterns exist in the mind.
But how do we know that the relation we believe we observe between material things in the world
doesn't actually exist in the world , but is, in a sense, a projection of our mind onto the world. And if relations don't exist in a mind-independent world, then neither do patterns exist in a mind-independent world.
I'm thinking about the problem of "relations" as described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Relations, which discusses (1) Rejection of both properties and relations. (2) Acceptance of properties but rejection of relations. (3) Acceptance of relations but rejection of properties. (4) Acceptance of both properties and relations.
A proof by contradiction.
There have been many times where there existed relations between material objects that we did not detect, but were nevertheless there. For example: The relation "Have a gravitational pull towards each other" has always been in effect, even before we detected it. Every physical law has always existed even before we detected it, and every physical law fits the definition of a pattern (which is why we can represent it mathematically).
So by example, we can see that patterns exist, and are in effect (have an instantiation) before we find them all the time. So how could patterns be projections of our mind only?
Not every pattern we think of represents reality, but that does not mean that every pattern we think of is merely a mind-dependent projection.
Besides that, I think there is a misunderstanding of my position. I believe ALL possible patterns exist, even if there is no material instantiation of them, and even if we haven't thought of them. So in a world without spheres, the pattern of "sphere" would still exist, even if no one imagined it yet. That is because I believe that patterns are fundamentally found, not created. Though, I suspect "all possible patterns exist" vs "only patterns that have a material instatiation exist" is an inconsequential difference ultimately. The proof by contradiction proves the latter not the former.
PS: By "possible" pattern I mean not self-contradictory, like a square triangle.
I prefer "stuff" to "matter", and I prefer "arrangement" to "pattern" because a pile of sand is matter arranged in no particular pattern, and light and X rays and such is something, but not quite matter to my mind. And when pressed, I will try to squeeze in "process" as a sequence of patterns.
As to the existence of patterns without matter as 'potential arrangements' or what have you, you can please yourselves as to their 'existence'. Certainly mathematics studies such beasts in the abstract, whether they exist or not.
Sounds to me like what neo-Scholastics call "hylomorphism".
Would it not be better to say that "what exists is energy (what matter is or is made of), and information (pattern). Matter is patterned energy, or in other words energy infused with information."?
All that really exists is energy; pattern or information emerges from the self-interacting chaotic nature of energy. A simple analogy would be to say that energy is to the ocean as information or pattern is to the waves. Energy is responsible for quanta or magnitude of existence in the universe while pattern represents configurations of quanta responsible for quality in the universe.
Energy is hard to define but i conceive of it as being both force and substance in and of itself. Force is the active principle of energy which is responsible for time (the hand of energy) and substance is the passive principle responsible for space (the memory of energy). These two characteristics of energy together in turn produce information patterns we know as matter, and matter evolves and increases in complexity through the process of evolution.
If one considers 'time and space' analogous to 'process and memory' then one can consider time and space to be components of a cosmic or universal mind, while all the things in the universe represent thoughts of this mind just processing information. Makes me wonder if a "thing" is just another word for a "think" of the universe (mind).
Yea that sounds better.
Patterns and relations exist in the mind of an observer of a mind-independent world
The Moon circled the Earth before humans existed, and in our terms, there was a pattern in how the Moon circled the Earth and there was a relation between the Moon and the Earth.
A pattern needs a relation between parts. I agree that patterns and relations exist in the mind, but do patterns and relations exist in a mind-independent world, because it affects your thesis that " I believe that what exists is matter, and patterns of matter".
Force is a different concept to relation, in that there may be a temporal relation between two masses yet no force between them. Two masses on either side of the Universe will have a spatial relation yet there be no force between them. There may be a relation between a mass and my concept of the mass yet no force between them. Force should be treated differently to relation.
My belief is that patterns and relations don't exist in a mind-independent world, for the reason that there is nowhere for them to exist.
Consider a system of two masses each experiencing a force as described by the equation F = Gm1m2/r2, the equation of universal gravitation. Mass m1 moves because of a force due to m2, and in our terms there is a relation between m1 and m2 and there is a pattern in the movement of m1 expressed by the equation.
Consider mass m1 experiencing a force. An external observer may know that the force on m1 is due to mass m2 at distance r, yet no observer could discover from an internal inspection of m1 that the force it was experiencing was due to m2 at distance r. Problem one is that the force from a 1kg mass at 1m would be the same force as a 4kg mass at 2m, giving an infinite number of possibilities. Problem two is that mass m1 can only exist at one moment in time, meaning that no information could be discovered within it as to any temporal or spatial change it may or may not have experienced.
Similarly, no internal inspection of m2 could discover any relation with m1. Similarly, no internal inspection of the force on m1 could discover any relation with mass m2, and no internal inspection of the force on m2 could discover any relation with mass m1. No observation internal to the m1, m2 system could discover any relation between m1, m2 and the force between them. Relations cannot be discovered intrinsic to the system m1, m2 because relations don't exist intrinsic to the system m1, m2.
An outside observer of the system m1, m2 may discover the relation F = Gm1m2/r2 because the relation is extrinsic to the system m1,m2. An extrinsic observer of the system m1, m2 would be able to relate the movement of m1, m2 to a force between them determined by the equations F = Gm1m2/r2 and F = ma. The observer would be aware of a relation between m1, m2, and being aware of a relation would be aware of a pattern.
As the relation F = Gm1m2/r2 is not intrinsic to the system m1, m2, by implication, the laws of nature are not intrinsic in a mind-independent world. Similarly, as the relation F = Gm1m2/r2 may be discovered by an outside observer of the system m1, m2, by implication, the laws of nature being extrinsic to a mind-independent world exist in the mind of an observer.
In summary, relations and patterns are extrinsic to a mind-independent world, and exist in the mind of someone observing a mind-independent world.
Yes there is, gravitational. And seeing how most physical stuff has a mass, I cited gravitational pulls as a relation that's present between most physical stuff and most other physical stuff. But this is a minor point.
Quoting RussellA
In a dualist conception, minds don't occupy a location either, but that's hardly proof they don't exist, especially not to the dualist. Even in materialist philosophies there are things that don't occupy a location. Very small particles do not occupy a single location as shown by the double slit experiment.
And also doesn't this contradict:
Quoting RussellA
There couldn't have been a relation between the moon and the earth before humans existed if minds are required for relations to exist.
Quoting RussellA
And YET
Quoting RussellA
EVEN IF no one is able to figure out why. If minds were required for a pattern's existence, then how come m1 and m2 are already acting in accordence to a pattern even before anyone finds (or "creates") it?
Quoting RussellA
Quoting RussellA
"Discovered". In order for something to be discovered, it must exist first no? The pattern exists in the system: {m1, m2}, even if it doesn't exist in the system {m1} or the system {m2}
Quoting RussellA
Let's test this hypothesis.
1: Minds are required for relations to exist (If I'm misinterpreting your position please tell me)
2: Therefore without minds relations would not exist
3: Therefore relations did not exist before human minds existed
4: Therefore the movement of the moon was in no way related to the movement of the earth before human minds existed
5: 4 is false, therefore the assumption 1 must be false.
When we observe the Giant's Causeway, which existed before sentient observers, we discover a pattern in the relationship of the parts.
It is in the nature of sentient beings to discover patterns in what they observe, and it may well be that different sentient beings discover different patterns from the same observation.
That you discover a duck and I discover a rabbit in the same picture does not mean that either exists in what is being observed.
When we discover a pattern or a relation, we are discovering an inherent part of human nature, not something that ontologically exists in a mind-independent world.
Which would require the parts to have a relationship, or for us to be mistaken about a pattern. That's actually another argument now that I think about it. Mistakes in patterns.
When someone says something like "When I tie my left shoe lace first, it rains the next monday" because they think they spotted a pattern from their experience, we can test that hypothesis and find that it's WRONG.
How do we decide it is wrong? If the pattern doesn't ontologically exist, if it depends only on our minds, then what exactly makes it wrong? If there is no "right" answer in the thing being observed itself, then how can there be wrong answers?
But aside from all of that, I don't see what you present as a criticism of my position so much as offering an alternative, since This:
Quoting RussellA
This:
Quoting RussellA
And This:
Quoting RussellA
Are all also possible in my system. Nothing you've presented so far actually shows that relationships ontologically existing creates any problems. All you've done as far as I can see, is presented an alternative view that I am still not convinced makes sense. I'm unconviced because:
1- I do not see how it can account for relations that have been in effect before being found. How can a relationship be in effect if it doesn't exist yet due to no minds existing?
2- I do not see how it can account for us sometimes knowing that a relationship we discovered is wrong/not actually what's happening. How can something be wrong without there being a right answer somewhere?
Those geometric patterns emerge through natural processes. :wink:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/11/why-is-irelands-giants-causeway-shaped-like-that/
You speak of patterns being created by our mind but this seems to miss what nature has to do with patterns.
Yes, what we see as patterns have emerged through natural processes in nature millions of years before there was any sentient being to observe them.
I would say that we discover patterns in nature rather than create them in our minds, as it is in the nature of sentient beings to discover patterns in the world around them.
However, any discussion is complicated by the metaphorical nature of language, in that the words "emerge", "natural", "nature", "create", "processes", "discover" and "mind" are metaphorical rather than literal terms. Trying to describe literal truths in a mind-independent world using language that is inherently metaphorical is like trying to square the circle.
A pattern cannot be right or wrong. What we infer from a pattern may be right or wrong.
If I notice the pattern that the sun has risen for the last one hundred days in the east, I may infer that tomorrow the sun will again rise in the east. My inference may be right or wrong, not the pattern that I have observed.
Quoting khaled
It affects your thesis that "I believe that what exists is matter, and patterns of matter" in the event that patterns of matter don't ontologically exist in a mind-independent world.
There are significant consequences in the event that patterns of matter and the relations within patterns don't ontologically exist in a mind-independent world, in that for example things that we know as "apples", "The North Pole", "mountains", "tables", "trees", etc don't exist in a mind-independent world but only exist in our minds.
Quoting khaled
We look at the Giant's Causeway and see patterns in the rocks and adjacent water. The question is, do these patterns, and the relationships between their parts, ontologically exist in the mind-independent world or only in the mind of the observer.
One of my problems with the ontological existence of patterns in a mind-independent world, and the relations between their parts, is where exactly do they exist.
When looking at the image, we know that A and B are part of one pattern and D and E are part of a different pattern.
But within the mind-independent world, where is the information within A that it is part of the same pattern as B but not the same pattern as D. If there is no such information, then within the mind-independent world, patterns, and the relations between their parts, cannot have an ontological existence.
One could say that patterns and relations have an abstract existence, in that they exist but outside of time and space. This leaves the problem of how do we know about something that exists outside of time and space. I could say that I believe that unicorns exist in the world but outside of time and space, but as I have no knowledge of anything outside of time and space, my belief would be completely unjustifiable.
One could say that the force experienced by A due to B is sufficient to argue that as A and B are related by a force, this is sufficient to show that A and B are part of the same pattern. However, even though A may experience a force, there is no information within the force that can determine the source of the force, whether originating from B or D. This means that there is no information within the force experienced by A that can determine one pattern from another.
Question: Sentient beings observe patterns in a mind-independent world, but for patterns to ontologically exist in a mind-independent world, there must be information within A that relates it to B but not D. Where is this information?
Again, I don't think something needs to have a location to exist mind independently. Electrons do not have a set location, and they definitely exist in a mind-independent world.
Quoting RussellA
By being pattern recognizing creatures. We have the ability to notice the abstract patterns that exist (indepencently of us).
Again, you keep using the word "discover" about patterns. For something to be discoverable, it must already exist yes?
Quoting RussellA
That's not true? That's certainly one way to parse the patterns, but one could also look at the pattern of "Giant's causeway and its adjacent shore" and A,B,C,D,E,F are all part of that pattern.
You placed some patterns in a set, forming another pattern, then placed the rest in another set, forming yet another pattern, then were surprised when the universe did not ontologically have the split you just arbitrarily created.
Quoting RussellA
Let's dig down on what this actually means. If minds were to disappear tomorrow what happens to pattern D? Does Giant's Causeway stop taking the rough shape of stairs? What shape does it take instead?
In order for something to exist it must have a form, a blueprint. That's all I mean by pattern.
Quoting RussellA
This just seems like a non-sequitor.
Again, all the information you need to determine the interaction between A and B, is in the SYSTEM that includes BOTH A and B. Idk why that information not existing in the system that is just A implies that patterns don't exist...
Quoting RussellA
False.
We're just talking past each other. You keep saying the same stuff and I keep quoting and responding to it. Then instead fo quoting my responses and replying, you just restate what you already said. I believe this fits the pattern "endless loop"
How about I ask a question then. Could you at least address this one directly?: You keep saying patterns are discovered. How can something that doesn't ontologically exist be discovered as opposed to imagined?
Electrons are not abstract entities, in that they have a mass and exist in a cloud surrounding an atomic nucleus. It is not that the position of an electron cannot be measured, rather, if you know precisely where a particle is you don't know what direction it is going.
Quoting khaled
I didn't create or imagine this image, but discovered it on the internet. The ever-ascending stair doesn't exist in the world, even though that is what I observe. What I observe is an illusion, in the same way that patterns I discover in the world are illusions.
Quoting khaled
I agree that patterns exist in the mind. The question is, do patterns ontologically exist in a mind-independent world.
A pattern as a whole is a regularity in the parts that make it up. I have no doubt that parts do exist in a mind-independent world, such as elementary particles and elementary forces. What I doubt is that sets of parts in a mind-independent world have an existence as a whole in addition to the individual parts.
We see a pattern in the rocks of the Giant's Causeway, even though the parts are not exactly regular. How regular does a pattern need to be for us to judge it as a pattern. If the distance between the parts varies by 1mm, the whole is definitely a pattern. If the distance between parts varies by 1cm, the whole is probably a pattern. If the distance between parts varies by 10cm, the whole may or may not be a pattern. If the distance between parts varies by 1 metre, the whole is definitely not a pattern.
As no pattern is exactly regular, whether the set of parts makes a pattern is determined by the judgement of the observer. There is nothing within the set of parts that is able to judge whether the whole that they are part of is a pattern or not. No part can judge whether it is part of a whole or not. The whole cannot judge that it is a whole made up of parts.
If patterns did ontologically exist in a mind-independent world, then as no pattern can be exactly regular, something within either the parts or the set of parts as a whole would have to have judged whether it was a pattern or not. Without recourse to the existence of a god sitting in judgement as to whether a set of irregular parts was a pattern or not, I don't see this as a possibility.
We judge whether the image is of a duck or rabbit, there is no information within the image that determines one way or the other. We judge that the pebbles make a pattern, even though they are neither regularly spaced nor sized, the pebbles cannot make that judgement. We judge when an object such as an apple is no longer an apple, the apple is no judge. We make a judgement in the Sorites Paradox when a heap of sand becomes a non-heap of sand, the sand cannot make any such judgement.
The mind judges when an irregular set of parts makes a pattern or is a non-pattern. If patterns did exist in a mind-independent world, then the problem would be in finding a mechanism within the mind-independent world that determines whether an inevitably irregular set of parts is a pattern or non-pattern.
I love that explanation. :heart: It fits perfectly with what I was thinking. Life is constant change but our language focuses on material manifestations, things. We have lost all the animism from our understanding of life. So a form is no longer Plato's understanding of form being manifest from an external force. But animation is a cartoon we create. :chin: Sometimes poetry seems better for understanding than our Romanized language of things. If I knew I had 300 years to live, I would study Chinese so I could think of everything as that language explains life.
Quoting RussellA That is an exciting thought.
Or that the pattern is simply irregular. ABABABABAB is a pattern. ABABBABBAABA is also a pattern. The second being irregular. It is our judgement that it is irregular. But both patterns exist. Some collections of things are arranged per the first pattern, others are arranged per the second.
Which also addresses this:
Quoting RussellA
There is no need for determining. The pattern is whatever form the irregular set takes.
Quoting khaled
Quoting RussellA
It's more than that. Particles act as waves sometimes. See double slit experiment. In the experiment it's not that the electron is in a specific position that if we know, we just wouln't know where it is, the electron is in no specific position at all. In that case, you have a good example of something ontologically existing without having a location.
You say that "All patterns exist independently of anything", inferring that before sentient beings there were some things that existed as a pattern and some things that existed as a non-pattern.
It is true that with hindsight a sentient being can judge which was a pattern and which was a non-pattern.
But in the absence of a judgement by a sentient being, either at that time or subsequently, what determines that one thing exists as a pattern and and another thing exists as a non-pattern, particularly when patterns may be regular or irregular.
But the relations between two groups of things may depend on the regularity of the patterns they (the things) form within their groups, independent of their awareness about each other patterns. The configuration of parts in a composite relative to other parts in the same composite may define how a composite interacts with another even if none of the composites or their parts is aware of such configuration. A pattern would exist independently of a sentient being if the pattern is responsible for a set of relations which would be absent in its absence.
What? How did you make that inference?
No, everything that exists has a pattern/arrangement. No judgement is needed. To think a judgement is needed for a pattern to exist is to assume that patterns are mind-dependent, begging the question.
Just like every object we can see has a shape. We do not need to judge what the shape is or have a word for the shape, and yet the object has a shape. This screen will continue to be square even if we had no word for "square" and even if no one had seen this screen before. What would an object without a shape look like? What would an object without an arrangement look like (since you seem to think those don't exist)?
And the arrangement "square" that the screen has determines some of its capabilities. A square can be laid flat, whereas a sphere can't. Thus, we can see that the arrangement of the screen has real world consequences.
If on top of that, the arrangement was entirely mind dependent, then we should be able to change the capablities of the screen by arbitrarily judging it to have different arrangement, but we cannot do that. If I judge the screen to be spherical that will not suddenly allow me to roll the screen on the floor smoothly. Thus, my judgement does not seem to determine what arrangement the screen has, only what arrangement I think it has.
In short: Although the arrangement of an object affects its capabilities, even if we judge that the object posseses an arrangement X, that does not grant it the capabilites that X would grant. Thus, which arrangement the object actually possesses must not be determined by our minds. Thus arrangements are mind independent.
Keeping with your terminology, accepting that trying to explain a mind-independent world using metaphorical language is inherently problematic, and using "aware" in the sense of having information.
If two things in a mind-independent world have no "awareness" about each other, then how can each thing be "aware" that it is part of a pattern that includes the other thing.
You wrote "I believe that what exists is matter, and patterns of matter."
The Cambridge Dictionary defines arranges as "to put a group of objects in a particular order" and pattern as " a regular arrangement of lines, shapes, or colours"
They have in common the concept particular order or regular arrangement.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that as everything in a mind-independent world is in a particular order or regular arrangement, then there is nothing that is not in a particular order or regular arrangement.
However, no single part can be in a particular order or regular arrangement, only the whole, the set of parts.
If everything in a mind-independent world is in a particular order or regular arrangement, either each part has information that it is a part of of a particular order or regular arrangement, or the whole has information that its parts are in a particular order or regular arrangement.
How ?
I have since then also said:
Quoting khaled
The Cambridge Dictionary defines arrangement as "a particular way in which things are put together or placed". No mention of regularity.
Quoting RussellA
Correct. There is nothing in the world that is not in a particular order. Don't know where you got the "regular arrangement" bit since that is not a common concept between the two definitions.
Can you give an example of something that is not in any arrangement? Or an object that has no shape?
Quoting RussellA
A set can include one object only. So this is not a problem.
Quoting RussellA
Too vague. What does something inanimate "having" information even mean?
But again, I don't see any responses from you. When I present an argument, you ignore it and come up with a new way to say the same thing I have argued against. There is no point in this exercise, so this will be my last reply.
But before we do anything know that it's 1:30 am here so excuse me if I just suddenly disappear.
What's stuff?
What are we ruling out? If it's not matter, then this isn't materialism, or?
Quoting Bylaw
What you'd find discussed in a physics or chemistry book.
Quoting Bylaw
"mental stuff" as dualists and idealists have it.
Binary consists of three aspects: 1s, 0s and patterns (relational structures) of 1s and 0s. You cant just ignore the 0s. Negation is an essential and frequently overlooked aspect of ontology.
But Ill read the rest of the discussion now, before I comment further
Maybe it's hypocritical of me to believe that a pattern is a "thing that exists" but an absence isn't. Hmm...
In its behaviour (or range of). In the mind-independent world there exists an interface between different behaviours (of groups of particles - i.e., rock and water); the existence of the interface requires a distinction between the groups of particles that form the interface (or there would not be an interface); this distinction materializes in the behaviour of the particles that make up the interacting surfaces.
Yes, an outside observer of the water and rock can see that molecule A behaves differently to molecule D, because molecule A is part of water and molecule B is part of rock.
Yet, within the mind-independent world of molecules A, D, etc, excluding any external observer, no single part can have any information within itself about its behaviour, as behaviour is an external property of a part.
As no single part can have information within itself about its behaviour, no single part can have information within it that its behaviour is due to being a part of one pattern, such as water, or another pattern, such as rock.
Here is a little piece of experimental technology that may be useful in this project (which has merit I think).
The Fibonacci sequence exemplifies a pattern. It has a purely numeric representation, and it is widely instantiated in nature. Recently, researchers attempting to overcome quantum decoherence subjected qbits to laser pulses based on the Fibonacci sequence. In so doing, they created a new phase of matter with two time dimensions, which indeed enhances quantum coherence.
I find this utterly fascinating, because not only are patterns instantiated in nature, but nature is also receptive to patterns apparently.
New Phase of Matter and Fibonacci Sequence
Patterns we see in nature are inevitable if things move and the laws of nature are constant.
If a particular event ends as it began, for example, the earth travelling around the sun, given the constancy in the laws of nature, and all things being equal, the same event will happen a second time, and a third, etc, and this is a pattern.
Nature is receptive to patterns in that at one time the metronome didn't exist in nature, but once a part of the natural world exhibits a pattern in its behaviour.
Clearly you speak of Plato's forms and also Aristotle's declaration that only matter is real.
Your picture shows the movement of water and the movement of land but the pattern is a result of temperature not just the movement of water and land. The picture does not tell the whole story but leaves out the most important part. Rapid expansion and rapid contraction that changes the form of land.
I am not sure that matter contains ontological information? I think information is what our minds do when we observe something. This is a little tricky. If we see a fossil in the dirt, we take measurements and determine what the animal was and perhaps even when it died, but are those facts information? Do the rings of a tree give us information or just facts and from there it takes an intelligence to make the facts meaningful information.
I would say that the rings of a tree give us facts and from there it takes an intelligence to make the facts meaningful information.
As Wittgenstein wrote in Tractatus: i) The facts in logical space are the world and ii) "A logical picture of facts is a thought"
Quoting RussellA
We are debating if patterns exist independently of minds, where a pattern is a behaviour - regular or irregular - of (a group of) "stuff"; a behaviour which is not widespread, that is patterns are localized - in the sense that not all stuff behaves exactly the same and there is difference in the behaviours of "stuff". Following this definition, patterns rely on differences to exist; if there were no differences between "stuff" there would be no patterns. If we focus on the amount of change a thing can undergo, we can see it is limited to a certain range; that is, a water molecule on the surface of planet Earth won't change into a rock molecule spontaneously, but instead it will change within certain degrees of freedom determined by its composition and its surroundings - a water molecule surrounded by water molecules will probably behave differently to a water molecule surrounded by rock molecules (think of bond vibrations, bond rotations, dipole distribution, and all that stuff). So, we have that patterns depend on localized differences, and these differences are limited in their "range of" change (of behaviour). A molecule of water of course is not aware/conscious it is surrounded by molecules of water or rock or air; however, the change it undergoes depends on what it is surrounded by and the way its surroundings are organized (a molecule of water surrounded by molecules of rock at 0 degrees celsius will behave differently to a molecule of water surrounded by molecules of rock at 1 degree celsius). That is, not all molecules of water behave the same. By extension not all molecules behave the same; and further, not all stuff behaves the same. There is difference in the way stuff behaves. Another way to see this is that the behaviour of a point in space varies to the behaviour of other points in space (not all points in space have the same properties) - and again, the quality of there being variation across space exists. I would say a mind requires variation to exist and not the other way around, for there must be variation before a mind capable of distinguishing variation exists (specially when such a mind collects information by detecting changes in the environment through the senses of its body). If there is variation and there is "stuff" then there are patterns automatically.
So, a part may not have intrinsic information (tbh, I would like an example of intrinsic information) that it is part of a pattern, but its behaviour is characteristic to the pattern it is a part of - and even if different patterns may lead to the same behaviour of a part, not all patterns a part can be a part of lead to the same behaviour, and not all behaviours that result from being part of a pattern are the same.
Now, just to make this post a bit more confusing, if we focus on the fact that a thing in itself can be it and only it, and we assume that because it is limited to its nature it can change limitedly, then by it being itself it has all the information that "tells it" it is part of a pattern, for it is being itself all the time in contrast to what it is not, and by being something in contrast to something else, it is already a part of a pattern, and the pattern exists because it is in-itself in the sense that its parts behave different to their behaviour if they were parts of other patterns.
I'll try to come with some better polished ideas that go against your view that patterns are mind dependent, I really like this topic and it deserves more thought form my part because to be hones your position is really difficult to refute, and it makes it fun. What I don't like about your view is that in the absence of minds then every point in space would have to be assumed to experience the same relations as every other point in space - there would be no differences of any sort; and I just can picture that when all I see is variation all around me. Again, I am assuming a pattern to be the result of differences in the distribution and hence behaviour of stuff. Those difference cannot be mind dependent.
I would say the main issue is that it needs to be a thing that exists in order to feature in the system. Ontology doesnt preclude being sans thingness. If pattern or arrangement subsists (which relates to your earlier discussion with RussellA), then so too does absence - of matter and of pattern.
Whether matter is given its traditional primacy or not, I would argue that any ontological system would need these three aspects at minimum: existence, absence and relation. There can be no accurate description of reality without a notable absence: no existence without relation to absence, no absence without relation to existence, no relation without a binary, and vice versa.
As for the question of whether patterns are mind dependent, I think we need to get away from the notion that were talking about patterns as things. What we seem to be referring to here is not a pattern, but arrangement, structure or relation as an aspect of reality. This is not simply about points in space, but is inclusive of space itself, and its relation to time, value and meaning as structures of reality.
I would say that any pattern we identify as such is mind dependent, or at least structurally determined, but pattern as an aspect of reality is not. Pattern - independent of existence/absence of mind or anything else - refers to structure: the underlying logic of the system.
And what are these "laws of nature" exactly in your view? Given that you do not believe patterns exist ontologically.
Well, this seems to be a critique to basically every ontological system, and one that's easily fixable by including "absence" in whatever ontological system is missing it, so I don't believe it's exactly a problem with mine specifically or that it's a hard problem to fix.
I think this needs a separate op talking about whether "absence exists".
That's an expanding set of 'things' and openended as far as qualities.
Quoting khaled
But within science you don't rule out things. You find a negative result about X, but it is conceded that future research may demonstrate Xs existence. You don't say, well that sounds like a thing that requires dualism or even rule out dualism. If, later, the consensus is that X exists, regardless of its qualities or lacks thereof, it is included in what is considered real.
Yes. But any dualist you find will insist that there is mental stuff on top of this set of things as a whole seperate set of things. That's what's ruled out.
Quoting Bylaw
Yes you do, when they contradict what you find. Galileo ruled out the geocentric system for example. Mental stuff (if it has any agency) will contradict conservation of energy.
And also this is thephilosophyforum not thescienceforum. I don't intend to strictly adhere to the scientific method.
Quoting Bylaw
Sure and if scientists find "consciousness" or "emotion" as some sort of matter then I'll scrap my beliefs on the spot. Until then, this is how I make sense of things.
The phrase "laws of nature" is a metaphor.
The problem of trying to describe literal truths in the world using language is that language is inherently metaphorical. For example, just taking the sentence "Patterns we see in nature are inevitable if things move and the laws of nature are constant", the following words are metaphors - patterns, we, see, in, nature, are, inevitable, if, things, move, and, the, laws, of, constant.
Actually due to the limitations of using language that is inherently apowiehnfao I am right and you are wrong. Sorry! Not very convincing is it?
@RussellA
Though I'll ask, what is "laws of nature" a metaphor for then?
I agree that within a mind-independent world variations exist, and it is these variations that a sentient being observes as patterns. However, "pattern" is a word that exists in language, and the question is, what exactly does this word correspond to in the world it is describing.
My starting position is my belief that elementary particles and elementary forces do exist in a mind-independent world of time and space. These elementary particles and forces combine to form what we know as patterns, rocks, water, etc.
What we see in the world as a whole is a set of parts. In a sense, a "part" is a metaphorical rather than real entity, in that parts have parts which have parts, etc until we arrive at the elementary particles.
In treating a pattern, rock, water as a whole made up as a set of parts, in accepting that the parts exist mind-independently, the question is, does the whole also exist mind-independently, or only in the mind of an observer.
I agree that a water molecule surrounded by water molecules will behave differently to a water molecule surrounded by rock molecules, ultimately because the behaviour of an elementary particle is affected by the elementary forces acting upon it, and it is this difference in behaviour that eventually accounts for what we observe as patterns, water, rocks, etc.
One doubt I have that patterns, etc exist mind-independently (though I have another) stems from the problem of naming. For example, a sentient being can judge when a rock is worn away and becomes a pebble, in that a sentient being can judge the difference between a rock and a pebble. But if rocks exist mind-independently, and pebbles exist mind-independently, when a rock is slowly worn away to become a pebble, at what stage does the set of molecules change from existing as a rock to existing as a pebble. I agree that as outside observers we could judge, but what is there in a mind-independent world to make that same judgement
Similarly for patterns, as a pattern slowly becomes a non-pattern. Midway between a set of molecules existing first as a pattern and then as a non-pattern, what in a mind-independent world can determine that the set of molecules has changed from existing as a pattern to existing as a non-pattern. My belief is that if there is nothing in a mind-independent world that can determine when a pattern becomes a non-pattern, then neither can there be anything to determine when something exists as a pattern rather than a non-pattern.
Basically, "patterns", "rocks" and "water" exist as names within language, and as Bertrand Russell pointed out in On Denoting, names don't refer to an individual having an independent existence, but are definite descriptions, quantificational expressions, of the parts that make them up.
Bye.
The one that says that "mental stuff" is patterns in the op. If scientists find it to be some sort of matter I'll have to change that.
Quoting Bylaw
Nor did I claim anyone has.
You claimed that scientists do not rule out anything. I gave a counter example.
Quoting Bylaw
If there is mental stuff that is different from physical stuff that does anything at all, then it violates conservation of energy, allowing us to rule it out.
If said mental stuff doesn't do anything at all then you get epiphenomenalism which comes with its own issues (like how do you know mental stuff exists if it does literally nothing)
Quoting Bylaw
Sure and I have done nothing unscientific here. You said that scientists don't rule anything out, but that's clearly false, and all I've done is rule out the dualist conception of mental stuff. Where have I been unscientific (again, not that I intend to be scientific or think that the scientific method is even applicable to philosophy)
Your speculation certainly falls into the kinds of things that scientists speculate about, and also of course philosophers, but it is speculative. If this was supposed to be taken as on a par with conclusions held generally in consensus in science, that would be unscientific. Of course we can use deduction in philosophy to propose things and draw conclusions, but when these are taken as proofs or 'now that is ruled out period'..well, I disagree.
Except for its Material foundation, your ontology sounds similar to mine, which I call Enformationism*1 : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). You might think of it as an update of Aristotle's hylomorphism (matter + form), except that it is a monistic concept in that Enformation is the essence (defining pattern) of everything, both Matter & Mind. "Information" is simply meaningful patterns in both matter & minds.
My thesis is based primarily on Information Theory and Quantum Theory. "EnFormAction" is a term coined to encapsulate the multiple roles of Generic Information in the world : it is the creative power to enform, to give form to the formless. The hierarchy of physical reality from-which-all-things-flow begins with EnFormAction (energy ; causation), which takes-on the various forms of Matter (the furniture of the world), and eventually even of Mind (the observer of the world).
Patterns are inter-relationships as known by the mind, not the eye. And Information is basically meaningful or functional relationships. So, EnFormAction is the cause of all things knowable by the senses, and manifest to the mind. Einstein expressed that hylomorphic relationship as E = MC^2 : Causal Energy is made manifest by turning Potential (C^2) into Actual stuff with the measurable property of Mass (M). Anything with that essential property is called Matter (hyle).
Of course, the physical Arrangements*2 that we interpret as Patterns*3, have existed for eons in the absence of intelligent minds. But they appeal to the mind as-if they were originally intended*4 to resonate with natural brains, due to their common evolutionary origins. So, the ambiguity (two sides of same coin) of natural patterns allows us to interpret them as accidental or intentional. But the Enformationism perspective, as a philosophical method, is looking for meaning, and finds it even in the natural patterns that Science views as meaningless. :smile:
*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*2. Arrangement :
the way that things or people are organized for a particular purpose or activity
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/arrangement
*3. Pattern :
any regularly repeated arrangement, a design.*3
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pattern
Note -- A pattern is by definition non-random, and seems to be intentional : e.g. the Giant's Causeway, in which the pattern is due to natural processes, and to the regulatory intentions we call Natural Laws. We could debate how the beautiful & orderly patterns of Nature could arise repeatedly & consistently from random processes. Darwin attributed the organization of evolution to Natural Selection. Which raised the question of how such design choices came to be inherent in natural processes : "design without designer". Darwin concluded that the "design" was illusory. But why would Nature want to deceive intelligent observers? Cognitive scientist, Donald Hoffman*5 has proposed a reason for human awareness to "see" simple superficial patterns instead of complex underlying processes. It seems to be a case of human intelligence viewing Nature through patterned glasses.
*4. Purpose :
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists -- intention or objective. ___Oxford
*5. The Case Against Reality :
He presents a comprehensive argument that we dont see or otherwise sense reality, but only an interface with reality.
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/12/05/do-we-see-icons-or-reality-a-review-of-donald-hoffmans-the-case-against-reality-brian-martin/
Were always so quick to isolate and exclude absence from the discussion, as if it can simply be tacked onto the system as an afterthought, and doesnt impact on what exists. Im not arguing that absence exists, but rather that it subsists as essentially as pattern or arrangement - a third aspect of the system.
Absence is not a problem to fix unless youre trying to ignore it. It is as essential to identifying pattern and structure as matter - whether elementary or virtual particles or water and rocks.
Its the reason for positing a mind-independent world in this discussion - where the notion of mind is whatever is NOT matter. This absent notion of mind is then embodied in the use of language, which becomes an important aspect in the discussion about the nature of pattern. And all of a sudden were bogged down in arguing over the structure of what is absent from the world we were attempting to describe
The Tao Te Ching interestingly incorporates the structure of traditional Chinese language as a metaphor for its ontological system. Recognising that something will always be absent from any description of reality, the TTC posits that absence as chi or a directional flow of energy, which we identify in ourselves as affect/desire, and bring subjectively to the written text.
What you're saying seems to just boil down to this:
Quoting Bylaw
Quoting Bylaw
It wasn't:
Quoting khaled
Quoting Bylaw
You're approaching the point of unreasonable doubt. At that point I can say something like "The idea that you need proof for something to be proven has not been proved, it's just that we have never found a counterexample" and it wouldn't be too far off from what you're doing.
We have to assume SOME things to say anything at all, and conservation of energy is not that big of an assumption relatively.
Quoting Bylaw
Again, I do not believe my post on thephilosophyforum has single handedly ended thousands of years of debate about ontology. But I'd rather discuss problems with the OP rather than continuously prove that I have not single handedly solved philosophy which I never claimed to have done.
That is closer to my own worldview. However, I go one step farther from Physics toward Metaphysics to assume that "all that exists is Information"*1. With that premise, we provide a possible explanation for the emergence of immaterial Minds (awareness) from a material world. Matter is indeed "patterned energy", but Information (EnFormAction) is the Pattern Maker.
A pattern begins with differentiation, like a checkerboard : a simple two value pattern. But in Physics the difference between high & low energy values (hot & cold) is what we experience as Energy*2. Likewise, we experience Matter fundamentally in terms of differing Mass/Space ratios : some elementary particles seem to occupy space but possess no mass, depending on their rate of motion through space. The upper limit is the speed of light, which maximizes energy while minimizing mass. (note -- this is an oversimplification)
All patterns experienced by human senses result from "energy infused with information". Potential Energy is patternless. But Enformed Energy is the cause of Actual material patterns that our senses detect. Hence, Generic Information (Energy >> Matter >> Mind) is the Enforming (causal) power of the universe. A conscious Mind interprets the patterned (informational) structure by judging the complex ratios of inter-relationships in terms of personal meaning. Such abstruse concepts are not commonly known, even on a Philosophical forum. So how did you arrive at the assertion quoted above? :smile:
*1. Is Information Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
After a brief primer on Shannons information, we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers double-aspect information as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality. Subsequently, we discuss Tononis axiomatic approach which takes phenomenology of experience and its characteristics as primary and built a theory to explain consciousness as the capacity of a system of mechanisms (neurons or logic gates) to integrate intrinsic information.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21#Abs1
*2. 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 (entropy). Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics its called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology its called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
TWO-VALUE PATTERN
MULTI-VALUE PATTERN
Since yours is a monist view, I assume all people in your view are also patterns at the end of the day correct? Wouldn't that result in fictional people "existing" in the same way you and I exist?
My working solution is that we use the word "exist" on patterns sometimes say the pattern exists, and sometimes to say that there is a material instantiation of it. Not sure if that's a good one.
For example, "the number 4 exists" does not imply the existence of 4 of something, but "Jeff exists" implies the existence of a person named Jeff irl, not just as a fictional character.
How would you deal with it without a material basis though?
Rovelli explains that our language system is ill-equipped to distinguish between now for me and now for an observer on Jupiter, for instance. Fortunately, we rarely have to make such a distinction at this stage. But we do run into a similar problem when we talk about the difference between real and fictional characters.
Here within language, I exist in the same way that a fictional character exists: potentially, a pattern of interrelatable values. But existence irl implies interaction with an observer/measurement device - ie. with an event, not with a mind. Its not so much a material instantiation of the pattern as an observation of it that verifies existence irl.
That I assume you are a real person is a choice I make based on observing patterns of language similar to real people whose material instantiation I have observed. In reality I have no definitive proof either way, no material instantiation of your existence irl nor reason to doubt it. I simply prefer to assume a real person than to entertain alternative scenarios at this point.
My worldview is Monist in the sense that it assumes, as an axiom, a single ultimate Origin of all particular patterns (entities). That hypothetical-but-logically-necessary Source is what I call "The Enformer" or "First Cause". But our physical senses are tuned to detect & interpret physical patterns, not the meta-physical "Pattern Maker". However, we can infer the Necessary Being*1 as a transcendent creative force via Reasoning from mundane experience with phenomena and causation.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fictional people". In the movie The Matrix, Neo is a fictional character, who is portrayed as a personal pattern in two fictional worlds : A> simulated normal reality (computer-generated data patterns) and B> gritty actual reality (nature-generated data patterns). Presumably, human viewers of the movie can tell the difference between imaginary movie characters and observed reality people. Yet, the movie presents a philosophical dilemma in which the simulations are so close to real phenomena that they seem to "exist" in the same way you and I do. However, in the physical world, we can't be so easily fooled by single-sense appearances, because we have multi-sense sensors. Unfortunately, the movie presumes that the AI simulation -- converted by the pods into dream language -- is so sophisticated that a fictional steak can taste "juicy and delicious"*2.
Nevertheless, even if we flesh & blood humans can't distinguish between a high-resolution simulation and actual reality, the Programmer of Nature should know which is which. So, from that higher perspective, any fictional people will "exist" in a different sense : artificial creations existing only in the imagination of natural creatures. For example, Neo first existed as an imaginary (abstract pattern) character in the mind of the factual (concrete pattern) story creators, then was repeatedly re-created in the minds of movie-goers. Ironically, the fact that we can imagine such paradoxical situations may be what made Philosophical Skepticism necessary. :smile:
*1. Logically, The Transcendent Being persisting beyond space-time would not "exist" in the same way as you and I do, within the constraints of Space & Time. Ironically, that implication would also apply to any "fictional people". Hence, the difficulty of distinguishing between "Inferred" and "Imagined" characters.
The notion of necessary being, applied to God and withheld from man, indicates that God and man differ not merely in the characteristics which they possess but more fundamentally, in their modes of being, or in the fact that they exist in different senses of the word 'exist'. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/abs/necessary-being/828B48FABE8B24A8567A8D2BF450D80B
*2. Cypher in the fictional Matrix :"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? . . . . Ignorance is bliss."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/characters/nm0001592