What does it feel like to be energy?
Energy does a lot of things; Heat, electricity, chemicals, light, magnetism, nuclear, potential etc.
Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? Could the sensation of existing simply be energy organised in a particular relationship to matter, or to it's other forms, or to both?
The brain = matter + the active energy exchange within it. With that in mind (excuse the pun) one would imagine one of these 2 things if not the combination of them both confers the conscious state.
So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does. Or they do when they interact in complex or specific ways.
Any of these possible conclusions would be profound in their own right, and have equally profound consequences no?
Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? Could the sensation of existing simply be energy organised in a particular relationship to matter, or to it's other forms, or to both?
The brain = matter + the active energy exchange within it. With that in mind (excuse the pun) one would imagine one of these 2 things if not the combination of them both confers the conscious state.
So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does. Or they do when they interact in complex or specific ways.
Any of these possible conclusions would be profound in their own right, and have equally profound consequences no?
Comments (119)
I'm trying to imagine energy (the ability to do work) in the complete absence of matter, which I'm not sure makes much sense. This would imply a completely non-material world where whatever constitutes a form of energy is sufficient in-itself for a kind of existence. Though if matter is really just a form of energy, it's all energy dude (and this is not profound). Our ability to understand energy requires everything that informs the understanding (energy as properties of organized matter).
The kinetic energy of a water wheel requires a lot of organized material in action. It is an example of just transferring motion of materials to do work, which is relative to an intentional observer's frame of reference. In such a scenario, how could your ever have whatever constitutes the forms of energy apart from the forms of matter?
What happens to the consciousness when energy is transformed into matter?
I don't see how, because energy operates according to physical laws, it has no capacity for self-determination or any innate direction. As soon as living organisms appear, they act intentionally, in that they seek to maintain themselves, maintain homeostasis, grow, heal and reproduce. And they remember. Energy, as such, displays none of these attributes or capacities, and there's no reason to believe that it 'feels like' anything to be it.
Quoting Benj96
[quote=Norbert Wiener, Computing Machines and the Nervous System. p. 132]The mechanical brain does not secrete thought "as the liver does bile," as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.[/quote]
(Bolds added.)
Pure energy is pure force with no direction (or all directions canceling), no aim, no purpose. When energy is combined or infused with information which is a product of spacial differentiation, suddenly energy acquires a direction, an aim, and a purpose. The direction or vector that energy takes when shaped by information is what i call an "arrow of energy" or an "energy vector" expressed in the fundamental forces of nature in space as a directed force (gravity, strong, weak, and EM). That is where we get our emergent concept of time as we perceive it, which is really just an "arrow of energy". The universe in its current state can be conceived of as being in a broken state of symmetry imbalance, and the job or 'work' of energy in space is to bring this symmetry back into balance (back to 0), thus the universe has a sense of teleology and purpose in this respect.
It appears to me that the unintended consequence of energy's activity in space is complexification of matter, giving rise to evolution and consequently more complex emergent forms of consciousness and intelligence. On the other hand, perhaps the emergence of complex intelligence through evolution is part of how the universe is trying to figure out how to detangle its symmetry imbalance problem.
Because more than one symmetry seems to be out of balance (at least 2 maybe 3) simply bringing particles together with gravity is not sufficient, which calls for a more complex form of energy to sort out the correct symmetries and bring those opposites together. An example would be two particles that have opposite charges, but the same quantum spin will not balance and annihilate. These particles then need to find a way around this and thus more complex forms of force emerge to handle it (EM for example).
I tend to think of these things more like universal reflexes than full blown consciousness like we or maybe a God might have. An analogy for this kind of reflex could be seen in how a gyroscope resists disalignment, and attempts to regain alignment without any apparent conscious intention.
:up: :100:
Running the hundred meter dash.
Top that, Usain Bolt :brow:
No. We can't harvest or store consciousness like the energy. There is no storage for consciousness. Consciousness is a live streaming.
Do you have the idea of energy as a substance which would constitute one half of a dualism (the old classic of spirit/energy and matter)?
Yes. Agreed. "different forms" of the "same thing". Ironic and seemingly contradictory but not.
I would go further to say that the c2 component is the factor by which the two entities interact by virtue of distinction into "does" (energy/time) and "is" (substance/matter and the dimension or space it assumes in being so).
My bets are that "consciousness" is contingent on/impressed within this c^2 component. As would be all information tbh. Because it is this factor that allows energy and matter (which are equivalent) to not be "equal" and thus have "different" or maybe even contrasting properties.
If matter and energy were "equal" in the strict sense than E=M would suffice. But they can be equivalent by a factorial (c2).
They're not equal in the strict sense E=M, because in order to be perfectly equal or perfectly the same identical thing in all regards of space, time,behaviour/property and form, they would thus in fact not be able to interact with itself at all.
Light cannot interact with itself at the speed limit. Because how does one impart action when velocity is unanimously equal? It's like the dog chasing it's tail but never quite reaching it.
In order to make distinction between entities. In order to make "separateness", or unique inidividual "things", there must be a dynamic between their individual spaces, times, energetic states and masses.
Even more so Nils. I think it's a quadralism? Quadratism? Or "dualism squared"? Not sure what to call it.
But basically it is a 4 way conversation between energy and time as one couple, and matter and space as the second couple. 1 dualism interacting with another dualism but both of them mutually dependent (Squared). If that makes sense. Because you cannot have any individual one component of the 4 (energy, time, matter or space) without the other 3.
I believe this is what E=mc2 refers to. Energy is in a dualism with matter by a factor of the dualism between space (distance) over time, or in other words speed. That is, the speed of light. C.
The implications of this quadratic? Let's take an example.
For every action in one dualism, there's an equal and opposite (inverse) action in the other dualism.
So let's take state A: All energy, no matter, all time (eternity) , no space. A singularity.
In order for energy to "decelerate" from the "speed of light" and form matter, then endless time must contract into finite time by simultaneously converting into a now new and expanding space dimension.
Does this sound familiar? A singularity exploding out into space and condensing into matter? Time becoming finite an measurable by virtue of the existence of objects that are subject to it and thus have rates of interaction. And energy decreasing and spreading out as it converts to mass (entropy).
The big bang.
Exactly Pantagruel, all matter must possess/carry internal kinetic energy in the form of the bonds that bind and stabilise it's substance/ makeup.
If a physical object were to reach absolute zero it would cease to exist because the energetic field making up its forces and bonds would no longer have any actionable consequence and wouldn't function to form matter. Time would also lose it's relative reference frame as their is no content (space and the matter contained within it) for which to be subjected to an arrow of time, and thus any duration of Existance.
So I see matter as a stable or "pent up/locked up" form of energy. As a rough analogy, if energy is the ethereal "fluid" or "gas" phase so to speak that pushes and pulls things (exerts force/does work) , matter is like the solid or crystalline phase that gets acted upon. More stable/less changeable, durable, but less potent. Neither can exist without the other if we take "Existance" to simply be the ability to interact/ impart information.
As for consciousness, if energy, matter, space and time can be adequately explained in relation to one another, the only remaining component of the universe to be explained is consciousness.
If E=mc2 pertains to all four elements - energy, mass, time and space, then either the formula is incomplete or consciousness as a property is hidden within it as a poorly understood or under appreciated component in the relationship. Therefore there ought to be 5 components to the equation to explain all 5 fundamentals.
And as it happens there is.
Energy (E), matter (M), time and space or "speed" (C) and lastly consciousness (^2)- the factor by which all the others relate. The relativism of the equation.
In that sense, consciousness requires the other 4 components to exist. But equally and oppositely, the other 4 components require consciousness to give them context. Ie. Observation of time, space, energy and matter as they are/interact.
The universe/existence needs to be "seen to be believed". And with 5 fundamental components all equally important, it can.
Precisely. And you can also view complex systems as being more elaborate instances of this phenomenon. Systems can store energy in any of its variety of forms, chemical, mechanical, etc. etc.. Moreover, I would say that, when energy is stored in a more complex system, it cannot be directly quantified and compared to energy stored in less complex system. The energic footprint of organic matter is equivalent to the total footprint of all the various energies contained within its constitutive systems, ranging from the quantum to the chemical to the organic levels. I'm not sure we can even make a good estimate as to what is the true energic footprint of consciousness.
If consciousness is a pyramid of complexity, with quantum states at the base, then newtonian physics, then biology and finally complex brains like the human one, the "trophic levels" of energy usage, organisation and refinement are quite literally enormous.
The degree of negative entropy (order) required for one minute of human conscious experience is contingent not only on the millions of neuronal computations done in that time, but also the millions of years of trial and error through evolution that got to this point.
But if you make the playing field and variables of possibility large enough (the universe), then somewhere, somehow, the improbable becomes possible.
I'm inclined to believe that consciousness is the ability of the system to self organise. And by organise i mean become a stable, consistent, self sustaining, replicable/repetitious reiteration, that with each generation becomes more sensitive to it's surrounding environment. That is knowledge at the end of the day., an entity that has become so complex and refined that it can sense, think, predict/anticipate, imagine and question and understand its environment to such a degree that it can begin to manipulate it to further it's agenda - namely to be curious, explore and reveal, to prosper.
I disagree. Consciousness requires storage - namely memory. Without memory, our sense of self, of place, of time, of coherent chronology, breaks down. As one with dementia experiences as their brains architecture breaks down due to disease.
If we had no memory (storage), we would not be able to revisit mentally the past, and thus contextually would not be aware that the present moment is indeed the present because we cannot retrieve anything beyond it historically. And lastly we could not anticipate a future because we don't have a past, nor present. So why expect a future?
Consciousness for me is the constant and live comparison between the previous moment (short term memory) and the present moment. Elucidating the differences to establish a coherent progression of perceived time.
Therefore, like energy which relies on interactions between matter thay stores it, consciousness relies on interactions between memories which stores it. Both consciousness and energy can reformulate, recombine, cause novel interactions. In an energy-matter capacity we calm this chemistry, in a consciousness capacity we call this thinking, imagination or change in perception/perspective.
What then is 'unconsciousness' non-energy? How then does it do work constitutive of consciousness? I don't think this "energy" analogy works, Benj.
Quoting Benj96
So, for example, hurricanes and viruses, salt crystals and stars, evolution and ant colonies are "conscious" (à la panpsychism)? :eyes:
Very much in line with 'research program' I'm pursuing.
If you haven't already read Nagel's Mind and Cosmos I'd highly recommend it. It's a short book.
And consciousness doesn't?
Quoting Wayfarer
And what might be said about the energy we use to live? That which does all the computations and organismal procedures used to sustain us for a minute of experience. Can we say that that specific quantity of energy is used for self determination and agency?
Secondly, what might we say about the autoorganisation or self-ordering of life processes from abiogenesis onward. All Negentropic processes still require energy to occur. So the birth and evolution of the first life forms all the way up to humans used X amount of energy which qualitatively acted out its ability to do work in a very much pro-agency, pro-life, pro-conscious awareness and experience type determination.
Im not speaking about all universal energy here, but rather the "force vitale"- that subsect or portion of energy that grants life through its particular action on inanimate matter.
Energy is required for life. But only when it operates in a a cohesive cooperative way against other energy - the chaotic, destructive entropic kind. But we cannot deny that the positioning of molecules in a specific way that confers sentient life is not a process carried out by energy.
The only thing that can "feel" as we do is either our matter, our energy, or the interaction between them. I would say it's the latter. Because we know matter can be a rock, and energy can be a fire blazing, but in a particular interaction they confer collectively the state of being conscious. So it is at very least a property of how energy interacts with matter.
:up:
Agreed. The original statement has since been considered again and I now don't agree with my original position. It's too vague and inaccurate. It is incorrect. Consciousness is not simply a "form of energy" like the physics definitions.
However, I've since mused upon/ elaborated the idea that consciousness is a specific subset of interactions between energy and matter in the same sense that active thought impulses and memory are both required for a coherent present tense perception.
Thoughts can be stored as memory in a material anatomical substance. And memories can be revisited/brought back into active thought/reflection and even reformulated/altered (change of perspective) .
In this way it seems consciousness is a combination of stored energy (matter organised in a specific way yet stable) and "active energy" - that which upholds the maintenance of memories, alteration of memories, processing of new stimuli and integration, imagination and creativity.
In thay way consciousness could be said to be energy indeed, but only in a restricted capacity as it relates to highly organised and refined material substrate - the brain.
Potential energy doesn't require matter, space or time. It's just potential. The moment that potential is converted to something "actionable" it requires time, space and matter to "act."
So the first act of pure potential is to convert into time, space and matter simultaneously
The first memory is created/stored. Energy pent up in a stable and enduring state, holding information, to later be manipulated and reformulated.
Or maybe it feels like being something static and substantial (body) holding something flexible and every changing (perception).
Our whole body can be broken down into different forms of energy and also matter (equivalent to energy).
Sounds like a lot of BS, Ben. :monkey:
No, it doesn't. Not unless you're a materialist :rage:
And yet Interference happens.
There's a few folk hereabouts, including @Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths.
The result is poor physics, and poor philosophy.
Consciousness and energy are similar in these ways: unity, intentionality, selectivity, and transience.
Unity is a property that both consciousness and energy share. In the case of consciousness, this refers to the idea that multiple conscious states of a person in any given situation are treated as a whole. Similarly, in the case of energy, multiple energy states of a system in any given situation are treated as a whole. An example of this is the conservation of energy.
Intentionality is another shared property between consciousness and energy. Consciousness is intentional, meaning that it is always directed towards something. It is the quality of being directed towards an object or state of affairs. Energy is also intentional, meaning that it is always directed towards something. An example of this is entropy, the arrow of time, heat death, particle/antiparticle annihilation.
Selectivity is a property that consciousness possesses, referring to a person's ability to narrow their concentration. It is the capacity to include some objects but not others. Energy also has the property of selectivity, referring to a system's ability to narrow its effect. An example of this is electromagnetism, which ignores neutrally charged particles, while charged particles respond selectively depending on the relative charges involved.
Finally, both consciousness and energy are transient, meaning that they are constantly changing and fleeting. Consciousness is the quality of being temporary or short-lived and changing, and energy is also transient. An example of this is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
These similarities between energy and consciousness provide insight into the nature of both phenomena and how they relate to each other.
I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, but I am often astonished by people's assumptions of competence or mastery of subjects they have no expertise in.
Fiction is written self-consciously, in that the author understands that what they are writing didn't happen. This is different, in that the author apparently thinks they are writing down what did happen.
It's not bullshit, either, since it is sincere.
Self-deception?
It wouldn't be problematic if @Benj96 had set out to write a poem imagining what it would feel like to be a photon. Indeed, Einstein imagined what it would be like to ride on a photon while developing the Special Theory. But then Einstein did the maths.
It's wanting to be "profound" without doing the work.
Or, perhaps more importantly for some, to appear so.
Organisms obviously utilise energy on a cellular and also bodily level. But 'that which does all the computations' is what, exactly? Whatever it is, I don't think it can be described as energy. It's something more like order. Perhaps the place to look for that, is the work of someone like Ilya Prirogine.
Quoting Benj96
Confusing double negative, but I think what you're saying is that whatever it is that orders matter in such as way as to give rise to sentient beings, it not 'carried out' by energy. In which case I agree. Energy - which is the capacity to do work - is obviously an intrinsic aspect, but order is something else again.
I understand the sentimental value you attach to memory. Memory is a very important part of consciousness. But memory and consciousness are not interchangeable. Amnesia is one condition which allows a human being to be conscious but lacking memory. In another thread some time ago, I mentioned that there are perceptions we experience that are not temporal.
"Not temporal" in the sense that memory is not needed for us to experience, objectively, a thing. Brightness is one of those. If a light flashes on you, it doesn't matter which rock or cloud you grew up in, you will experience brightness, and you will know what brightness is (though you might not have a word for it).
Quoting Banno
Hello Banno, Can you or someone you know examine my logic calculus in the post linked below? I'd sure like to have a useful assessment.
Quoting Tom Storm
Hello, Tom Storm, can you render an opinion on the link below?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842888
No. Physics or logic (or speculative fiction) are not my expertise - hence why I don't usually participate in speculative discussions.
What is that?
It's not a logical system I recognise, nor is it something that I can locate in Wolfram Mathworld.
Quoting Banno
I'm glad you asked me the question.
It's trying to say that if X is transcendent, the domain of its transcendence can include itself.
Self-transcendence, being complicated, leads naive logicians like me to messy expressions like the one you quoted.
It's saying the function of a transcendent fact is the set of that transcendent fact correlated with its antecedent definition reciprocally. That simply means that a self-transcendent fact is a higher-order of itself in a paradoxical configuration. This isn't really mysterious, the wacky language be darned, because an emergent property can be predicated upon a ground lacking utterly that property. So then, the ground, in this scenario the lower order or lower set, supervenes upon the property not like itself, although, in this case, the higher property is itself, and thus the paradox.
What's exciting about my logical calculus is that it talks about paradox as an emergent property in extremis: self-transcendence. Might it be the way out of the OBO (Origin Boundary Ontology = the first/eternal existing thing) puzzle?
You're supposed to go through the terms of my logical calculus and discover breaks in the inferential chain, perhaps ultimately reducing the statement to reductio ad absurdum status.
So how am I to read f(t)? That f is a function acting on t? Or as a predication? And if it's a predication, what's the addition symbol doing? And how do I read {t,f} - what do the curlies do?
And how does it relate to my post?
That comment is an ad hominem, which -- as you well know -- should have no place in a philosophy dialog. It's also a Straw Man fallacy, which attacks a soft target, instead of addressing the hard question of the role of Mind in a material world. It may also be a Red Herring fallacy, to distract a discussion from focusing on the "real issue". Which, to paraphrase the topic of this thread is : "what does it feel like to be energy".
As worded the issue : "So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does". That may sound ridiculous to you, but it is a legitimate philosophical question for some of us, who take consciousness seriously, and don't dismiss it as immaterial. Is Consciousness a manifestation of causation (energy) or a material substance made of atoms? For example, Nagel's "what is it like to be a bat" is not a question that can be answered by Physics or Chemistry or Biology, but can be addressed only by Philosophical methods, which may use physical or mathematical metaphors, but is not provable by mathematical calculations.
Physics Envy philosophy is a common communication barrier on this forum. You seem to think we are doing Physics on this forum, instead of Philosophy. I don't know about the others mentioned, but I am not a physicist. So why would you accuse me of "doing physics without the math"? Why would you expect "expertise" in physics, when physical examples & analogies are used to make philosophical points? Taking metaphors literally may be another logical fallacy. :smile:
On the topic of fallacies, that is a false dichotomy. Is it energy, or the matter from which your car is constructed, that enables your car to take you to the grocery store?
Can you provide any evidence that consciousness exists apart from dynamic (energetic) processes occurring in matter?
Have you seen what direct contact with the high power energy (for example the high voltage electricity of 10k volts) does to animals or material objects? Burning, breaking, exploding, melting and destroying. There is nothing reasonable about it.
Well, no. Pointing out that you repeatedly produce bad arguments is not an ad hom. It would be an ad hom if I'd said your arguments were bad because of some irrelevant personal characteristic of yours. But your arguments are bad because the conclusions do not follow from the assumptions. Or, often, the assumptions do not cohere.
And what you cite from @Benj96 is an obvious false dilemma.
Quoting Banno
The attempted logic calculus is supposed to show me doing the math you claim I'm not doing.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Banno
You ever try to converse with an english-as-a-second-language learner? Consider such a learner who's never been in an ESL classroom. Some immigrants learn english by watching tv commercials, right?
Ever read any quotes from Yogi Berra, the NY Yankees manager who was born across the tracks from logic? If there's gonna be a formal ceremony, "include me out."
f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) is supposed to show that tf (transcendent fact) occupies the set of transcendent facts {t,f}. Since transcendent means "going beyond a boundary" the set {t,f} holds members that are paired with set {t} and set {f}, but the latter two sets are not subsets of {t,f}. By stretching the common sense meaning of things to an extreme, I'm saying {t} and {f} are transcendently members of an empty set.
180 Proof is using tf = { } to show that, so far, there's no evidence for the existence of such facts.
My intention is to show, through a logic calculus interpretation of his argument that, with the terms of his argument rearranged, it says that, {t,f} does exist as a logical relationship. This, of course, falls short of existential proof of real TF, but it's something to keep the debate going re: the possibility of the emergent property: super-nature.
So how am I to read f(t)? That f is a function acting on t? Or as a predication? And if it's a predication, what's the addition symbol doing? And how do I read {t,f} - what do the curlies do?[/quote]
You're supposed to read it as "a function acting on t, or a function acting on f," such that the empty set of {t,f} is populated, albeit transcendently.
Correction: f(t) + f(f) ? f(t+f) is supposed to show that the terms are approximate because non-local members of a set aren't members in a straightforward and simple situation.
The parallel is that inorganic matter gives no clue to the possibility of the organic matter of living organisms, yet it's a predicate for life. Just as non-life predicates life, emptiness acts on transcendent facts to populate an empty set. The somethingness of an empty set is consistent with it being a member of every set.
Thanks for bearing with me up to this point. Clearly, the fog is coming solely from my side. That you see a couple of things I'm attempting in fumbling fashion marks progress in my mind although for you such micro-advances are cold comfort.
Yes, t = transcendent fact. There's also set {f} because, through labyrinthine logic (I think), transcendence is modular to everything else, even its own attributes. Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions.
Yes, f(f) is supposed to be a generalization denoting the commonwealth of sets of facts.
My engagements with proficient logicians helps me in the same manner that a new speaker of english, while stumbling through conversation with a native speaker, manages to understand a few meaningful communications and, even better, manages to send one or two.
No. It's simply a Chicken or Egg conundrum for us to argue about. It's stated as a dichotomy, but that's simply to simplify the premises. Either/Or questions are like Ockham's Razor. However, if you can think of a third or fourth source of consciousness, we can add those options to the discussion, at the risk of obfuscation.
Your postulated alternative is not really an alternative. In view of modern physics, your car is constructed of Both energy And matter : E=MC^2. According to Einstein, they are merely different forms of the same essential stuff. And 21st century physicists have further postulated that matter & energy are different forms of another fundamental essence*1 : Information = en-form-action. And information is the meaning in a conscious mind.
's OP question may be a philosophical form of the same conceptual equivalence. Is Consciousness a property of Energy or Matter? My answer would be : Yes. But E & M are both proximate forms of the ultimate Power to Enform*2, which I call EnFormAction for brevity. By that made-up name, I'm referring to the Big Bang Singularity (a computer algorithm?) from which every thing in the Now universe was formed*3. Which came first, the energetic chicken or the embryonic egg? :smile:
*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
Note --- 21st century physicists are extrapolating Einstein's Energy/Matter equivalence to include the strange "force" behind the Information Age and Artificial Intelligence. As professional materialists though, they are not making the further extrapolation that Energy = Matter = Mind. That's the contribution of Information scientists, such as those at the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity.
*2. EnFormAction :
Universal Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- This is a philosophical conjecture, not a physics assertion.
*3. What powered the Big Bang? :
The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm
Note --- this hypothesis is not the basis of my Universal Causation. I just provided the link to show that Cosmologists are still looking for the ultimate cause of the original Bang, that Plato called the First Cause.
See my reply to above.
Before you accuse me of making assertions that should be restricted to physics experts, I'll deny in advance that my proposal is a Physics Fact ; it's merely a Philosophy conjecture. But, it helps to have some familiarity with cutting-edge Physics and Information theory. :smile:
You aren't being consistent. You start by recognizing a distinction between matter and energy, and when shown that you have posed a false dichotomy, you deny the distinction.
No, you are merely missing the philosophical point . . . . again! :sad:
You seem to think the Chicken & Egg conundrum is a logical puzzle. It's a philosophical koan, something to think about. :smile:
But if he's wrong, then there's nothing it's like to be energy, because energy as used in physics, is a technical term which loses strength when it comes to human beings.
Whatever.
Melvin Vopson could've made a mistake in his interpretation and conjecture deriving from Laundauer's principle.
Is Information Physical and Does it Have Mass?
[quote=url=https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/11/540]As it is possible to see from the discussion above, information is not physical by itself but has a physical representation and, naturally, this physical representation complies with physical laws. This is in good agreement with what Landauer actually wrote and not with his more far-reaching claims. Thus, the physical properties that Landauer and other researchers conjectured, ascribing them to information [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], are actually the properties of the physical representation of information.[/quote]
One wonders if it light waves in a vaccum would count as a non-material medium for the storage of information. So if information has mass from nowhere, how could it travel at the speed of light? Only massless particles can travel at the speed of light.
Move over Einstein.
:monkey:
:snicker:
Are you playing the game,labyrinthine logic? The wave function is already a logical expression, subject to interpretation. This is all very mysterious. :chin:
Photons are used in fiber optic cables to 'represent' data, traveling from a source to a destination.
This is energy representing data but not energy that is data and no information with meaning/intent exists at that lowest level of data transmission.
I asked the following question of chat GPT:
How can information be fundamental when it is processed data?
ChatGPT's response:
[i]The concept of information being fundamental relates to its significance in various fields of science, philosophy, and information theory. While information often involves processed data, its fundamental nature lies in its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and play a crucial role in understanding the universe and our place in it. Here are some key points to consider:
Information as a Concept: Information is not limited to data or raw facts. It encompasses the interpretation and organization of data to create knowledge and meaning. In essence, information is the result of processing data to extract meaning or insights.
Information Theory: Information theory, developed by Claude Shannon, provides a framework for understanding the fundamental aspects of information. It quantifies information in terms of bits and defines concepts like entropy, which measures uncertainty and information content.
Communication and Cognition: Information is essential for communication between individuals, species, and even between machines. It underlies our ability to convey ideas, transmit knowledge, and make decisions. It's also fundamental to cognition and how we perceive and understand the world.
Emergent Properties: Information can exhibit emergent properties, meaning that the way information is processed and combined can lead to new insights and knowledge. This is evident in fields like artificial intelligence, where complex algorithms can generate novel solutions based on the information they process.
Fundamental Role in Science: In various scientific disciplines, such as physics and biology, information plays a fundamental role in understanding the universe. For example, in quantum physics, information is a key concept in describing the behavior of particles and the nature of the universe at the smallest scales.
Philosophical Considerations: Philosophers have debated the nature of information and its relationship to reality. Some argue that information is a fundamental aspect of reality itself, akin to energy and matter.
In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe.[/i]
What laws would you determine consciousness as obeying. For me consciousness requires a spatial dimension (from which to perceive environment) , energy (to run cognitive processes) and matter (to store memory). And thus would assume that the laws that govern these things would uneccesarily also imoavt the consciousness carried/conveyed or manifest by them.
Intereference can't occur between photons travelling at the same velocity. It is the result of an interaction with a physical barrier that deflects them - either Co vergently of divergently (for example via double slit experiment).
I said "how does something interact with itself when the velocity is equal". In interference, the velocity is not equal is it.
A declaration without supporting explanation is hardly philosophical at all is it.
Of course. That's why they are trying to devise an experiment to confirm the conjecture. There is already experimental evidence that meta-physical*1 (immaterial) Information can be converted into physical Energy*2. And, since Einstein's equation postulated that Energy can be converted into Mass (matter), it makes sense to postulate that an Information >> Energy >> Matter experiment would work.
However, my philosophical interest in Information is its relationship to Intelligence & Consciousness, not to Matter & Energy. I mention those theories & experiments only because many posters here seem to be more interested in the material aspects of the physical world, than the immaterial features of the meta-physical world. Those posters tend to bristle at any mention of Mind-stuff on a philosophy forum. Which may be why the topic of this thread has attracted a flock of matter-minded boo-birds.
We are still in the early stages of the Information Age. So, at the moment, these equivalences are more hypothetical than empirical. But, for me, that's where theoretical philosophy comes into the picture. :smile:
PS___ Einstein objected to the spooky, un-real, statistical, non-classical, non-mechanical, immaterial, mental, implications of Quantum theory*3. But eventually, he had to "move over" and let the quantum dice fall where statistical randomness dictates*4.
*1. Meta-Physical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The stochastic state of Quantum Superposition is literally "outside of human sense perception" until it is triggered to "collapse" from Potential math (idea) to Actual matter (object).
Stochastic : randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
*2. Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion :
In 1929, Leó Szilárd invented a feedback protocol1 in which a hypothetical intelligencedubbed Maxwells demonpumps heat from an isothermal environment and transforms it into work. After a long-lasting and intense controversy it was finally clarified that the demons role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can, in principle, convert information to free energy2,3,4,5,6. An experimental demonstration of this information-to-energy conversion, however, has been elusive. Here we demonstrate that a non-equilibrium feedback manipulation of a Brownian particle on the basis of information about its location achieves a Szilárd-type information-to-energy conversion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821
*3. Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics? :
Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics, observing that God does not play dice. But, in fact, he thought more about the nature of atoms, molecules, and the emission and absorption of lightthe core of what we now know as quantum theorythan he did about relativity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821
Note --- Quantum scientists have grudgingly become accustomed to the idea that quantum Superposition is an unreal statistical mathematical state until an experimental observation transforms Potential/Virtual/Mathematical Fields into Actual/Real/Material Particles.
*4. Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests Spooky Action Is Real.
The new experiment, conducted by a group led by Ronald Hanson, a physicist at the Dutch universitys Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, and joined by scientists from Spain and England, is the strongest evidence yet to support the most fundamental claims of the theory of quantum mechanics about the existence of an odd world formed by a fabric of subatomic particles, where matter does not take form until it is observed and time runs backward as well as forward.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html
Oh please come off it. It's a). Absurd to assume that physical principles and relationships cannot be explained or at least attempted to be explained approximately in a non-mathematical/formulaic capacity. Relying on esoteric language as a stand in barrier to discussion is a great way of saying "you can't talk about X without using y and z wording. That's not only restrictive and narrow, it stagnates elucidating useful or novel perspectives on a subject matter which may (or may not be, granted) apt for discussion.
B). Anyone citing dunning-kruger effect as a go to could, in doing so, be propagating their own dunning-kruger effect. It, rather ironically, takes a certain level of arrogance to determine the dunning kruger nature of any oppositions interjection. It is as if to say because I clearly know the answer, everyone else's is a dunning kruger answer.
Therefore, instead of resorting to/relying on this, I welcome an actual argument that obliviates mine. Or picks a flaw in it. Citing dunning kruger but not offering any explanation of your own in place of what I said? Slightly curious, mostly boring, and especially convenient/lazy.
C) your assumptions of my academic background on the matter are in themselves a personal conjecture, and much less anything that can be regarded as fact.
So obvious and yet you fail to clarify exactly why. Laughable. All talk no action. Bring on your "actual" arguments.
It sounds like you are saying that providing remedial physics lessons is part of philosophy. Is that right?
Quoting Benj96
No more scientific assertions for you.
The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data".
But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."
This insight is relevant to the OP, in that it offers a way to interpret an apparently non-sensical technical question --- what does it feel like to be energy?--- as a meaningful philosophical exploration of interpersonal understanding. That's assuming the question was not meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically, in the as-if manner of creative philosophers throughout history. :smile:
PS___ Materialistic posters, who tend to be prosaic & literal-minded, may interpret such a clever question as a sign of Dunning-Kruger technical incompetence. But the mis-application of that technical term in a hypothetical context may be a sign of philosophical incompetence.
Philosophical Questions to Spark Deep Critical Thinking :
https://www.scienceofpeople.com/philosophical-questions/
Sorry for the rudeness, just a bit annoyed at your responses.
Quoting Benj96
You admitted it was mistake to pose the initial question and you didn't directly answer my question whether you were thinking about substance dualism. If you can't have matter without energy as you say here, why did you ask whether consciousness could be a form of matter or energy? You set up the dichotomy as if it is significant/correct then drop it suddenly.
Photons in a vacuum are massless particles/waves. So that would be an example of a form of energy(?) without matter, but I'm sure you are talking about the bigger picture of dependent origination. If photons never act with matter we'd never be able to tell whether they exist, though all light is emitted from matter.
Quoting Benj96
This is a non-sequitur weird response to what you quoted. Sounds like you have the big bang in mind.
At this point this is the only claim that I'd like to know more about but I'm not sure I could ever understand what is going on in the experiment to believe you are conceptually correct. Information can never be non-physically represented. Where does the energy really come from?
"Any logical operation with fewer output states than input states must produce heat to keep overall entropy from decreasing." But what exactly is producing the heat of the Laundauer limit in a non-reversible logic gate?
Why Pure Information Gives of Heat (Youtube)
Quoting ucarr
Quoting jgill
I'm trying to say that "t" and "f" are not subsets of {t,f} because, being transcendent in the sense of the wave function, they inhabit a cloud of probability before measurement.
What to do with this?
Cheers, benj. Photons all travel at the speed of light, mitigated only by the refractive index of the medium. And they do interfere with each other.
I'll leave you to it.
My suggestion is you study the elementary theory of sets in order to use the notation accurately. Then compose your ideas accordingly.
Quoting jgill
I acknowledge your suggestion specifies the correct way for me to proceed and I will act accordingly.
No, it was factual, not prejudicial. Chat GPT pointed out that the 'importance' of processed and interpreted data, allows us to generate meaning. It, like you, protested about the importance of information. It accepted that it was processed data.
Quoting universeness
Information is produced via process, so, imo is human consciousness. It is a product of brain process alone. Even the panpsychists don't claim that a rock is conscious or that energy can 'feel,' or demonstrate intent.
Electrons have mass, photons don't. Neuroscientists have no current idea about the difference mass and massless have, on how human thought is produced and interpreted in a brain. Do you know of a peer-reviewed, published paper that contradicts this?
In computing, photons and electrons can be used to represent data, but at the low level of data transfer, they have no individual meaning. A light pulse/packet/photon/field excitation or an electron voltage that falls in a preset analogue range, is either present at the receiving computer, during a single clock pulse, and is 'registered' as a 1, or such is not present, during a single clock pulse and is registered as a received 0. Before that moment, no information has been created, it's just mass or massless energy, flowing down cables, or through the air.
As a layman, I don't know "what's going on in the experiment". All I know is the conclusion that the scientists inferred from their experiments : that invisible intangible information can be converted into effective Energy and tangible Matter. Empirical physicists seem to be expanding on Einstein's E=MC^2 formula, which explained mathematically how blazing stars can create rocky matter, such as iron, from a gaseous plasma of elementary particles, by means of geometric gravity. Some are even placing Information into the equation and are converting mathematical Data into causal Energy and malleable Matter.
That equation of Cause (energy) & Effect (matter) does not compute in Classical Newtonian Mechanics, but becomes reasonable in Modern Quantum Mathematics. In his Nobel lectures, Heisenberg indirectly referred to Einstein's equation as "the transmutation of energy into matter". If he had been following Shannon's equation of mental/mathematical Information to physical Entropy, Werner might have included "Information transmutation" in his speech.
Mental Information (ideas) can be "non-physically represented" in mathematical symbols, and now it can be physically transmuted (change of form). That counter-intuitive concept may underlie Tegmark's Mathematical Universe theory. It assumes that mathematical ratios are not only rational (mental), but also physical (energy as ratio between hot & cold), and material (elementary particles as mathematical points in a universal Field). None of which makes sense, from a classical physics or common-sense perspective.
Regarding your question "where does the energy really come from", I have my own personal theory, as postulated in a non-academic thesis. But I won't get into it here, because metaphysical Materialists will react emotionally to a notion that seems to contradict their own matter-based belief system. And that would drive this thread even further away from the philosophical Koan in the OP. :smile:
I didn't say that defining Information as "processed data" is prejudicial. In the context of Shannon's practical engineering solution to communication problems, it may be factual. But in the context of a Philosophical understanding of Information, it is prejudicial to imply that Information is only processed data*1.
Do you see how that little exclusive word could be biased toward a materialistic interpretation, and away from the other non-physical definitions used in Information Theory*2*3? As I noted : the ChatGPT did not accept the "only" definition, but concluded that "Information is not merely processed data"*4. Is that a factual statement, or an intelligent opinion? :smile:
*1. Quote from this thread:
The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data". Gnomon
*2. Information theory definition :
Information theory is based on probability theory and statistics, where quantified information is usually described in terms of bits. Information theory often concerns itself with measures of information of the distributions associated with random variables. One of the most important measures is called entropy, which forms the building block of many other measures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Note --- Statistics is a mathematical (mental) tool for dealing with the randomness & uncertainty of the physical world. Entropy is the inverse of Energy, and negative causation as contrasted with positive causation. Entropy is a state, not a material thing, hence a mental/mathematical concept.
*3. It from Bit (matter from mind) :
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions. ___John A. Wheeler, quantum physicist
https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf
*4. Quote from this thread :
[i]But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."[/i]
The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost.
How is Laundauer's principle related to the solution of the paradox of Maxwell's Demon?
[quote=ChatGPT]
Landauer's principle is closely related to the resolution of Maxwell's Demon paradox. Maxwell's Demon is a thought experiment proposed by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century, which appeared to challenge the second law of thermodynamics.
In the Maxwell's Demon thought experiment, a hypothetical "demon" is described as a tiny, intelligent being capable of sorting fast-moving hot gas molecules from slow-moving cold gas molecules. By opening and closing a tiny door or gate in a partition between two chambers, the demon allows only fast molecules to pass from the hot side to the cold side and slow molecules to pass from the cold side to the hot side, effectively creating a temperature difference without doing any work. This seemed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat naturally flows from hot to cold, and it appeared as if the demon was reducing the entropy of the system without expending energy.
Landauer's principle comes into play as a solution to the Maxwell's Demon paradox. Landauer's principle states that erasing information (in this case, the demon's knowledge of the molecule speeds) incurs a minimum energy cost. When the demon observes and records information about the gas molecules (fast or slow), it is essentially increasing its knowledge, which implies a reduction in entropy. When the demon erases this information (to forget which molecules are fast and slow), it must dissipate energy into the environment, thereby increasing the total entropy of the system.
In other words, Landauer's principle implies that the demon's act of erasing information about the gas molecules requires energy, and this energy expenditure ensures that the overall entropy of the system (including the demon and the gas) still obeys the second law of thermodynamics. The reduction in entropy from the sorting process is offset by the increase in entropy due to the energy dissipated during information erasure.
Therefore, Landauer's principle provides a resolution to Maxwell's Demon paradox by showing that the apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics is reconciled when considering the energy cost of information erasure. This insight connects the realm of information theory with thermodynamics and helps maintain the consistency of the laws of thermodynamics. [/quote]
Hopefully ChatGPT isn't hallucinating a wrong answer.
How is Information Related to Energy in Physics?
:up:
@universeness
Would either of you to care to explain the significance of this distinction that information is or isn't processed data. I suppose the technical definition you guys are using belongs to a specialized domain of computer science or information theory. Maybe it doesn't hold for ordinary macroscopic examples.
If I have a book of encrypted information that tells me how to do something but I've suddenly misplaced my encryption key, does the book lose information because I can't process or potentially process its data?
Even when the book has been decrypted, does it still lack information until I process/read it? A book is not a book without a reader.
On a fundamental level the book never loses significant information in the absence of any particular observer in a short time scale. This information, like energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed. Whatever constitutes its fined-grained physical reality of the book as material has undergone some irreversible change in accordance the arrow of time (matter and energy always changing in flux). Some information changed but it is not relevant to the reader who is concerned with a particular macroscopic arrangement (the letter, words, sentences, the book) which come to represent relative information to a particular mind.
So maybe we can say that:
Relative information can be destroyed or lost.
Absolute information (energy and matter) can neither be created or destroyed and is fundamentally conserved, just converted. Absolute information ultimately has no meaning without a mind (is it information?); it must always exist in relation to a mind.
In order to lose relative information there must be a corresponding physical change of absolute information (energy and matter), no matter how trite that change may be, like losing your bitcoin key in a fire. But any change in absolute information need not always cause a meaningful loss in relative information, like losing the ink of single letter in a book.
Is it conceivable to lose or gain relative information with no corresponding change in the physical world?
I think this is correct. Science has no complete definition of exactly what energy is, but I think the concept of data, fits better as a 'poor' description or alternate placeholder for the word 'energy' or as a description of what energy is, at a fundamental level, compared to using the word information. In Computing science, information is data with an associated meaning. Many choose to use this as a way of 'sneaking in' a god of the gaps argument or a dualism argument about human consciousness. I think all such attempts are invalid, no matter if they come from philosophical musings, musings about metaphysics or bizarre projections of real physics.
The 'absolute' best answer currently available to humans regarding the exact mechanisms and source of human consciousness is 'we don't know.' For me, the best evidence we currently have, suggests that it is a process of the human brain alone. The word energy is merely a placeholder for 'that which is required to do work.' To bring in god/a first cause mind with intent/dualism/a deterministic substance, etc etc is just pure speculation, nothing more. Fun and entertaining but not science and certainly not a good reason for accepting any religious, theistic or theosophist proposals, including @Gnomon's enformationism.
Yes. Shannon, as an engineer, defined his communication theory of Information (knowledge transmission from mind to mind) in technical terms of physical Entropy (uncertainty ; ignorance). And the inverse (erasure) of Entropy is Energy*1. But that implicit equation of mental meaning with causal power was counter-intuitive to most scientists at the time. Hence, rejected by the non-philosophy-inclined, who were advised to "shut-up" about the metaphysical implications*2, and just "calculate".
A century later, Energy as a form of Information is still a concept on the periphery of science*3. However, the similarity of Information to Energy is evident in the First Law of Thermodynamics : Information, like Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form. One form of Information is orderly knowledge (energy analogy) and another is disorderly ignorance (entropy analogy). The most basic form of Information (knowledge) may be Mathematics : the logic of the physical world.
When I responded to your question --- "where does the energy really come from?" --- I was not referring the energy-of-information-erasure experiment, but to the ultimate source of causation in the world : the First Cause. But that's off-topic, and controversial, as indicated in 's dismissive & erroneous assertion that "@Gnomon's enformationism" implies "accepting any religious, theistic or theosophist proposals". Although others have used Quantum metaphysics to justify their religious beliefs, my thesis has nothing to do with any religion or god or Theosophy. So his insinuations are merely fallacious ad hominem attempts to belittle by association. The thesis does however require mixing physics with metaphysics (i.e. philosophy).
The Enformationism thesis is based upon the non-classical, hence counter-intuitive, metaphysics of Quantum and Information theories. It does not deny the practical applicability of Materialistic metaphysics in empirical science. And it does not support any Supernatural metaphysics in traditional religions. But, it does incorporate the Holistic metaphysics of modern transdisciplinary Systems Science*4. Which is unacceptable to those who believe Science is necessarily Deterministic and Reductive. Quantum science was forced to relinquish those 17th century classical beliefs in order to make sense of sub-atomic observations, such as the two-slit experiment. Interpretation of the perplexing results required the use of both Epistemology (knowledge ; information) & Ontology (being ; reality) concepts in an empirical context. :smile:
*1. Physicists investigate erasing information at zero energy cost :
In the context of information, information erasure corresponds to entropy erasure (or a decrease in entropy) and therefore requires a minimum amount of energy, which is determined by Landauer's erasure principle.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-physicists-erasing-energy.html
*2. A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics : (often dismissed as Quantum Mysticism)
The revolution in physics that brought us to a quantum picture of the world was so radical that it does not merely force a rethinking of physics, but metaphysics as well. Quantum physics may imply that the world is fundamentally indeterminate, that causes are not always local to their effects, that there are many more than three spatial dimensions, that wholes are not simply sums of their parts, . . .
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quantum-ontology-a-guide-to-the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics/
*3. Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics.
Anthology edited by physicist Paul Davies, Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science
Note --- Davies uses the term "God" in his science writing in a sense closer to the abstract Prime Mover or First Cause of the Greek philosophers, than to the Creator of Christian apologists.
*4. Systems theory : (Holistic Science)
The fundamental concept of systems theory is that the whole system is more than than the totality of its parts.
https://research.com/education/what-is-systems-theory
:up:
@Gnomon
You gloss over interpretations of complex physics topics which I don't think you really understand in trying support your metaphysics. Your language and evasiveness is a red flag for me, suggestive of a kind of sophistry. But it wouldn't matter if everything you said was perfectly coherent, and you knew quantum physics inside and out, it'd be far too complicated for me to follow.
Makes me think of that Quantum physics professor that Dawkins interviewed -- too rich with metaphysical implications.
The Quantum misticism is too misty and the forrest of terms is too obscure and thick, and I'm cognitively limited, so I cannot pass.
Cheers to your passion.
Nils, how can we discuss Energy without getting into Physics? Apparently, my posts get too close to the nuts & bolts of sub-atomic physics for your comfort. But my personal philosophical thesis is based on the meta-physics of Physics. As an amateur philosopher, I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? What you take to be "evasive" may be just complex ideas whizzing over your head. You are free to ignore the stuff that's beyond your grasp. But don't blame it on my use of technical language, that is defined in the footnotes.
Nobel Physicist and Philosophy basher, Richard Feyman felt the same frustration with the non-classical & counter-intuitive & non-classical Quantum aspects of the foundation of reality. That's why he advised his students to just "shut-up and calculate"*1. The "metaphysical implications" are too philosophical for mechanical physicists, and apparently for some TPF posters. But it's a fertile source of metaphors for philosophical reasoning about the roots of reality. Are you averse to metaphors & analogies drawn from physical fundamentals? :smile:
*1. Calculate but don't shut-up :
'Shut up and calculate' does a disservice to quantum physics
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calculate-does-a-disservice-to-quantum-mechanics
So much grandiosity.
You are not an expert, as you say. I would want to know the physics inside and out before attempting to cite conjectures/experiments for support, though I can understand the (de)merit of trying to explain reality in one's own (un)fashionable terms. The test I guess is if people are interested.
Quoting Gnomon
"Information is power." You could write a lot of good stuff on this without having to go anywhere near quantum physics or thermodynamics. You don't even need to coin a name for your 'theory' either.
Was that ironic sarcasm intended as a philosophical critique of some "grand" idea?*1 Or just a knee-jerk response to a personally repugnant idea? Is the hypothesis being scorned pretentious, or just over your head?
It's all too common for believers in A> a natural world of Matter & Mechanics to react negatively to the notion B> of a cultural world of Minds & Memes & Mathematics. The A>, "commonsense", worldview is that of Newton in the 17th century, and the latter B> "erudite" non-sense view was derived from the 20th century science of fundamental sub-atomic physics. Which is more impressive?
Note that I didn't use the taboo word "quantum", since it is too often associated with "bullsh*t" on this forum. There's a new book out now : Quantum Bullshit, by Chris Ferrie. It discusses "profound sounding quantum nonsense" such as Quantum consciousness & Quantum love & Quantum quackery & Quantum veganism. But it does not have anything to say about the legitimate scientific/philosophical query we are discussing on this thread : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?"
The classical science answer would be, not just "no", but "hell no!". Yet the fundamental sub-atomic science answer might be "maybe". For example, Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with massive Matter, implying a kind of transubstantiation*2. Then, quantum pioneer Heisenberg turned the microscope around to point at the mind of the observer*3. And John A. Wheeler noted the relationship between mental Information and material Mass*4.
Unfortunately, some religious people were quick to interpret those mind-related concepts in sublime terms, to support their supernatural-soul beliefs. But, anti-religious people were just as quick to damn scientifically practical foundational physics by association with such unrealistic "weirdos". Isn't there a middle-ground between those extremes? :smile:
*1. Scientific Grandiosity :
The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_112012
Note --- Information theory, combined with Quantum theory, is beginning to condense all of Physics down to a single concept : Mathematics (logic ; ratios ; relationships ; fields). In other words : Energy. Which is the causal Power to Enform, not just Material from Potential, but also Life from Matter, and Mind from living organism. It's all a single procession of en-formation. Isn't that grand!?
*2. Exactly what does E = mc2 mean? :
The equation is known as the mass-energy equivalence relationship. Before Einstein's radical thoughts, mass and energy were thought to be very different things.
https://www.uu.edu dept physics scienceguys
*3. Uncertainty Principle :
The Heisenberg principle is an epistemological lack of information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/heisenberg/
Note --- In this case, Information consists of meaningful & useful ideas in a mind.
*4 Matter from Information :
One clear consequence of it from bit is the importance of the observer: reality requires one. I think [Wheeler] was very radical, says Zeilinger. He talks about the participatory universe, where the observer is not only passive, but the observer in certain situations makes reality happen.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/
Note --- Pardon the hyperbole. As he explained later, TAW did not mean that a single human mind could create a physical cosmos by an act of thought. He was noting the much more modest creative act of producing an idea about reality in the mind : in the sense of "to realize".
PS___Ooops. Was that too radical or profound for you?
Banno's law : the easiest way to critique some view is to begin by misunderstanding it.
Yes. but then I would just be parroting the ideas of others, rather than thinking for myself. :smile:
The Socratic Method: How To Think For Yourself "
The Socratic approach involves participants in a process of critical thinking and self-examination as opposed to providing knowledge in a simple or didactic manner.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com stoic-blog the-s...
Didactic : In the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way.
It seems that you are talking about something like Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"
But Nagel refered to life and consciousness. He didn't refer to physical things like matter and energy. He is not a Panpsychisist. And for all non Panpsychisists (animists, hylozoists, etc.), consciousness is an attribute of life, of living entities.
Really, isn't a problem for you to think, imagine that light can feel and what kind such feeling would be? :smile:
Most people think a brain is required for consciousness. We can manipulate brains to make people fall unconscious, as I'm sure you've probably experienced general anesthesia yourself. Brains are made of matter and the work that they are able to do is function of the physics of organized matter in motion. It is a parsimonious proposition, based on evidence, to believe that consciousness requires a brain and a brain requires matter.
The question, could consciousness be a form of energy, implies a dichotomy that doesn't make the answer to the question trite/obvious. How do we have consciousness without particles that have mass and why speculate on whether we could if everything around us makes the speculation ridiculous?
It is possibly a mistake to say everything is energy with regard to the principle of mass and energy equivalence (though my understanding is limited here). Electrons produce photons all the time, but they don't become photons. Fission/fusion produce both mass and massless kinds of radiation, but for a star to lose mass, it is losing tons of particles with mass from its stellar wind.
A star never directly loses mass from photons, as the photons don't carry mass. A star loses mass indirectly from photons in their contribution as force carriers to help break nuclear bonds.
A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". For example, a photon is usually described, not as energy-per-se, but as a "carrier of energy"*1. It's also described as a "massless particle"*2. But without mass, how can it be a particle of matter? The answer is "it's not". It's merely the not-yet-real Potential for Energy. And that Potential may be what's called "pure energy"*3. But "pure energy" is a mathematical/mental concept, not a material object*4.
Energy itself is not a material object, but merely the idea of Causation, inferred from observations of changes in matter. The ancient Greeks used the analogy of an ideal invisible worker to give us the idea of what Energy is. A modern, but still enigmatic, metaphor for "Energy" is stated in terms of "information regimes"*5. I'll leave you to ponder that one.
There's too many logical leaps -- for a forum post -- between pre-Big-Bang Potential Energy*6, and the eventual emergence of living creatures with rational minds. However, my Information-based thesis attempted to delineate those steps. But I still haven't yet covered all of the material objections to equating Mind with Energy. So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. I'm not trying to harass materialists, though. These forum posts are the means by which I continue to use contrary opinions to help me develop my personal understanding of the relationship between Energy, Matter and Mind.
It's not Science that makes "speculation" on the relationship between Mind & Energy "ridiculous", but the ancient metaphysical belief system known as Materialism. That common-sense "objective" worldview did not take the mind of the observer into account. But modern sub-atomic physics was forced to do just that, in order to make sense of its paradoxical observations. And, a century later, we are still grappling with the counter-intuitive implications of philosophical Physics. :smile:
PS___Thanks for the thought-provoking questions.
*1. Photons as Carriers of Energy :
In conventional physics, the photon absorbed or released is nothing more than a quantum of pure energy.
https://www.universeofparticles.com/photons-as-carriers-of-energy/
*2. Does light have mass? :
Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
*3. What is pure energy? :
There is no physical essence of energy, and no such thing as pure energy.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-energy/
Note --- That's because "purity" is an ideal concept, not a real thing. Yet the concept does "exist" as a mental model : perfection uncontaminated by matter.
*4. Is mathematics a mental construct? :
Snapper (1979), in making sense of the intuitionist approach, defines mathematics as the mental activity which consists in carrying out constructs one after the other (p. 210). In effect, mathematics has to be constructed to exist and cannot exist independently of the mind that constructs it.
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/teaching-mathematics-overcoming-miscommunication/0/steps/327692
*5. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
*6. Singularity : sometimes conceived as a not-yet-executed computer program
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/605384/where-was-matter-before-the-big-bang
You overlooked the part where people equate consciousness with working physical brains. If we started performing brain surgery on you, we might be able to knock out everything associated with your philosophical theory.
Though light is typically considered non-material, a form of energy, it is physical. Purely photonic brains would still be physical brains, if possible.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm still lost as to why you don't think it's a false dichotomy. It is parsimonious/orthodox to conclude minds need physical materials to emerge in the universe and to do work. Where any work could possibly occur, you can apply the concept of energy.
Quoting Gnomon
Materialism has evolved into physicalism to accord with the perspectives granted to us by physics.
Physicists/philosophers alike will continue to wrestle with whatever the role of the observer has to play in the interpretations of quantum mechanics but the subject is, and will always be, leagues over my head. Whereof one cannot speak, one must [s]remain silent[/s]. :monkey:
Closer to the Truth: Does Information Create the Universe? (Youtube) I like Allen Guth's take on the question of whether or not information is fundamental.
This is a really good episode of 'closer to truth'. I had already watched it before. I also liked Sean Carrol's contribution and Mr Koch's points near the end. I would have preferred that the scientists involved would have used the word data as well, to make the difference with information clearer.
At the fundamental level, there is no demonstration of 'meaning' or 'intent' or 'determinism' imo.
I can conceive of no meaning, intent, feeling or determinism inherent in processes such as particle spin or quantum fluctuations.
You missed the part where I never denied the contribution of a physical substrate to the production of consciousness. Mind is the function of Brain.
My thesis is not what you think it is. It's merely a scientific update of an ancient philosophical notion. And it's based on Information & Quantum Science, not a recycling of traditional Idealism.
In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is just one form of Generic Information (e.g. Platonic Form) ; Energy is another form ; Brain is another form ; and Consciousness is merely a recent innovation after 14 billion years of evolutionary computation. Those statements won't make sense to you until you can get past your subconscious preconceptions :smile:
Quoting Nils Loc
As I noted above, your "dichotomy" is not a part of the Enformationism thesis ; apparently it is a part of your preconception of the Mind/Body duality*1. My thesis is ultimately a Substance Monism -- a la Spinoza*2 -- postulating a single universal Substance/Essence -- a la Plato*3. :nerd:
PS___Note the colon (:) between Mind & Energy above. As a logic symbol it indicates an inter-relationship, not an either/or dichotomy, as would be implied by a slash symbol (/). Another name for my philosophy is "BothAnd"*4.
PPS___Thanks for the challenge though. It helps me to understand the many ways that a novel (or unfamiliar) concept can be mis-interpreted.
*1. Mind-body Dualism :
Mind and body dualism represents the metaphysical stance that mind and body are two distinct substances, each with a different essential nature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115289/
*2. Substance Monism :
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/
*3. Form Monism :
Plato's theory of Forms is a form of monism because it posits the existence of a single, unified reality that underlies all of existence. While other forms of idealism or monism may posit multiple levels or aspects of reality, Plato's theory emphasizes the essential unity of the world of Forms as the true reality.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Platos-theory-of-Forms-Why-is-it-a-form-of-monism-rather-than-dualism-or-pluralism-like-other-forms-of-idealism-monism
*4. BothAnd Principle :
The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires 'skin in the game" to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
No one has the decryption algorithm to the following scrambled paragraph, if there is one:
srevinesu lebaB yrtpolexse si yldwi fo dna si eht ecdirbelsac egdelbaac knwoeldge, a ti. stiltu, tsav erutan, krow eninihtarbmal, sterlet, yreve dezilogtnahna delater, hguorht trohs eht fo lla dna reve taht egroj siulL . noitcif. gnithguoht-vekorphtuo tsecip uoy'er gnirrefer eht dna ytnifni, ot eht yretlib tpecnoc smuaf dna
Our minds will try to give it context. Those are letters look like the ones used in English. Hey, I speak English. It's obviously gobble de gook. A computer might be able to compare the letter set and count to a coherent English paragraph elsewhere on the internet, maybe if it weren't derivative of ChatGPT. But how many complete paragraphs also contain the exact same set of letters and is this a problem? It looks like clues are left but maybe they are false clues. Why even assume it came from a paragraph that was transformed by some process, without someone there to tell us so.
This possibly highlights the role of the observer and the relative nature of information as processed data. How do we go about decrypting it? Maybe whatever process that scrambled it is irreversible. Information has been lost in one sense, relative to an observer, but whatever corresponds to the lower level of information/data of the physical world is conserved. The lowest level of data (bits) is fundamental, but not the representation of it.
Maybe! As the scientists in the video you posted demonstrated, they as experts in their relevant fields ,cannot reach consensus yet, on the notion that 'data' is a fundamental 'real' constituent of the universe at sub-atomic scales.
Does data exist at the Planck scale? I would suggest, probably, yes, smaller than that, and we get to black holes, does data exist inside black holes? We know hardly anything about black holes! All my brain offers me at that stage, is an off switch.
Yes! :up:
But what is a "Bit" made of? Is the relationship between 1 & 0 a material object, or a mathematical ratio? John A. Wheeler's 1989 It from Bit hypothesis, assumed that Information was the fundamental element of the world, and matter was just one form of the essential basis of reality (Platonic Form)*1. That radical notion inspired several young physicists in the 21st century to propose mathematical models of the universe, implying that matter is merely an evolved form of essential mathematics*2. These counter-intuitive conjectures are closer to speculative Philosophy than to physical Science. They are not empirically provable, but provide snack-food for hypothetical thought.
Math itself is essentially the Logical structure of the physical universe. And where does Rational Logic find its highest expression? In dumb Matter or in intelligent Minds? The human mind has evolved the unique talent of creating imaginary representations (signs ; symbols ; models) of material things and their inter-relationships (logical structure ; gestalts). And the fundamental element of Information theory (bit) is itself a mathematical ratio : a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% (nothing to everything) : a statistical (rational) relationship, not a real particle of matter : Informationism not Materialism.
So, maybe could reword his OP : "what is it like to be a Bit?" :joke:
*1. Theory of forms :
Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki Theory_of_forms
*2. What is the holographic Universe theory simplified?
A holographic Universe means information that makes up what we perceive as a 3D reality is stored on a 2D surface, including time. This means, essentially, everything you see and experience is an illusion.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/our-universe-is-a-hologram
Note --- The world is probably not an illusion perpetrated by a great magician. It's just generic Information creating both Mind and Matter by means of the natural computation we call Evolution.
Units of Information :
The basic unit of information is called bit. It's a short form for binary digit. It takes only two values, 0 or 1. All other units of information are derived from the bit.
https://devopedia.org/units-of-information
Is Information Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21
Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
[i]What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality.[/i]
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html
Information as a basic property of the universe
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/
The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information
One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
Oh my Gelos. Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I just got off work, so I'd appreciate it if you could take care of that yourself.
:grin: A nice attempt to move away from 'oh my god!' if that was part of your intent. Gelos still being a divine reference. A divine manifestation of laughter, according to google. Forest Valkai (on-line atheist/biologist who invites theists to call-in for a debate on theism) uses the exclamation, 'Oh my glob!' I have tried to stick to 'oh for goodness sake,' but old habits die hard.
I'm sorry that "you have no idea what I'm talking about". Maybe praying to Gelos will help. At least you might get a laugh out of it. :rofl:
If prayer doesn't work, maybe a little Google invocation of statistical Information probability will clarify the meaning of those little 1s & 0s : the fractional degree of certainty of a communication. :smile:
Information theory :
[i]A key measure in information theory is entropy. Entropy quantifies the amount of uncertainty
involved in the value of a random variable or the outcome of a random process.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Entropy (information theory) :
[i]In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes. . . .
The information content, also called the surprisal or self-information, of an event E E is a function which increases as the probability p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} of an event decreases. When p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} is close to 1, the surprisal of the event is low, but if p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} is close to 0, the surprisal of the event is high. This relationship is described by the function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
Experimental Uncertainty :
Percent uncertainty is fractional uncertainty expressed as a percent, i.e. fractional uncertainty multiplied by 100.
https://www.bates.edu/physics-astronomy/files/2011/12/Experimental-Uncertainty1.pdf
Note --- If the technical definitions above are above your pay grade, a simpler analogy might help : The uncertainty of Information can be expressed as percentages ranging from Impossible (0%) to absolutely certain (100%). Or merely a probability ratio ranging from 0% (impossible) to 100% (actual).
That's a lot of yammering to say that you still haven't learned what a bit is.
Assuming you really do know what you are talking about, you lack a principal of charity. Your audience doesn't have the means to understand you. If other roads of combined inquiry, such as a deep dive into information theory, statistical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics (a synthesis of knowledge about physics) get us to your understanding, we still might be able to disagree with how your present your information, or reject the implications conveyed by your 'philosophy'.
Why don't we need to study physics or information theory to understand your philosophy? If we do, you're speaking to the wrong audience. You need to sell it to a room full of physicists (aka the"shut up and calculate" terrorists).
If you could summarize the value of your perspective in a single paragraph, how would you? Sometimes one person's philosophy is another person's headache. Example: "Don't you dare tell me I don't have free will."
Have you noticed the uncharitable ridicule that has been directed toward and Gnomon, for daring to ask questions that question the material foundations of Consciousness? Materialism/Physicalism/Realism seems to be the most common ideology on this forum. So, Benj and I may be unwelcome interlopers in a clique of back-slapping believers, who give thumbs-up for good gotchas, not for good reasoning. Usually, the animosity is vaguely concealed under a veneer of science ; for example applying the Dunning-Kruger label to those they want to portray as ignorant idiots. I think Benj and I have been as charitable as possible in view of the mean-spirited ad hominem attacks.
Actually, it's usually those who don't like the meta-physical (mental) implications of Quantum & Information theories who bring up the question of empirical evidence. And non-classical quantum physics is the source of the puzzling empirical evidence that forced the quantum pioneers to drag sentient Observers & intellectual Information into their equations. Besides, the topic of this thread implied the "strange bedfellows" of Physical Energy and Mental Feelings : "Energy does a lot of things; Heat, electricity, chemicals, light, magnetism, nuclear, potential etc." Yet his actual question was not about Physics, but Meta-Physics : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?" So, Gnomon brought in some philosophical "evidence" --- including Information Theory --- pointing to the equation of Consciousness with Energy.
Please note that it was the uncharitable posters who insisted on physical evidence and "physical brains" as irreducible necessity for Consciousness. And who ridiculed the relevance of abstract statistical math to Information Bits. Ridicule is facile*2 denunciation, not a philosophical argument. You said that, unlike the Dunning-Kruger labelers, you are "assuming" that I know what I'm talking about. If so, why not take the brief*3 references to Physics, Math, and Information Theory seriously? Notice that I'm not forcing you to read abstruse scientific articles. The links are there for those who are interested enough to look into the information behind Information theory and Consciousness studies. I am not an expert on those sciences, but I have taken the time to read & ponder their philosophical implications.
Ironically, those who were taught Linguistic Philosophy in college may be baffled by the technical language of quantum physics and information mathematics. If so, it would be more charitable to withhold commentary, instead of displaying their incomprehension in passive-aggressive language. :smile:
PS___ In other threads, on topics related to Consciousness, I have been dismissively labeled an anti-science New Ager --- despite links to scientists, not to gurus. So, I get it from both sides : too-much Science on one hand, and Luddite on another. Does that mean I'm somewhere in the middle? Philosopher, for example.
*1. Facile : (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
*2. A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness :
[i]Consciousness is not a phenomenon that comes from physics (as it is conceived but how to conceive it otherwise?)
Consciousness is a metaphysical substance. It is the mystery of what is being as opposed to what is thing.[/i]
https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-consciousness-21222/
Note --- Although the source of this clip is a Neuroscience study, it seems to be mostly a philosophical analysis of arguments over the last century. You don't have to read the article ; just take the brief, non-technical, excerpt for what it's worth.
*3. Quote from this thread :
?Benj96's OP question may be a philosophical form of the same conceptual equivalence. Is Consciousness a property of Energy or Matter? My answer would be : Yes. But E & M are both proximate forms of the ultimate Power to Enform*2, which I call EnFormAction for brevity.
Note --- The link in the post gives a capsule definition of a complex & counter-intuitive concept, that originated with a quantum physicist, and has been debated by scientists & philosophers over the last century. If you are not interested in such topical "evidence" just ignore it.
OK. So what is your yammer-free definition of a "bit", in the context of this thread, questioning the relationship between Energy & Consciousness? :smile:
PS___Shannon's definition deliberately omitted the meaning of a bit to the analog brain of the conscious receiver of a communication, in favor of utility for processing in a non-conscious digital computer. If you merely parrot Shannon's yes/no definition, I'll know you missed the point of this thread.
GPT translation:
"Knowledge, as the backbone of wisdom, is a complex and elusive mystery. It requires study, learning, introspection, reflection, and a lateral understanding of all those through thought and careful consideration. If you're pursuing the concept of liberty, finding unity and meaning to the infinite complexities of life, you're on the right path. Although it might take time, perseverance, and thinking-through, nothing is too difficult to achieve."
The context in which we are having this discussion is you having said:
Quoting Gnomon
I recommend you look up "bit" on Wikipedia in order to stop making a fool of yourself when talking about Information Theory. Better, yet would be if you stopped talking altogether about your new age religion, as if it is in any meaningful way related to Information Theory.
Weird how ChatGPT got such a clean paragraph. It can't translate or unscramble the original paragraph because it doesn't remember how it scrambled it. I think it went through several unsuccessful scrambles to get the one I posted. It's like when you translate sentences through Google translate, you lose the original.
Found it. The original paragraph was an output of ChatGPT:
[quote=ChatGPT]The short story you're referring to by Jorge Luis Borges is titled "The Library of Babel." It's a famous and widely anthologized work that explores themes related to infinity, knowledge, and the nature of the universe through the concept of a vast and labyrinthine library containing all possible books. In this library, every combination of letters and words, including every book ever written and those that have never been written, exists. "The Library of Babel" is one of Borges' most celebrated and thought-provoking pieces of fiction.[/quote]
@Gnomon
I'm not attacking you, just doubting. Cheers.
No worries mate. I wasn't talking about you being hostile. However,'s labeling of my position on Consciousness as a "New Age" religion, is typical of the aggressive defense of an anti-religion & anti-metaphysics world-view. My personal take on the Mind/Body controversy is indeed Meta-Physical and Philosophical, but I avoid bringing Religion into it. So, his attacks on a Straw Man completely miss their target.
For you, I was just trying to explain why I always seem to be on the defensive --- swatting at gnats --- in threads on metaphysical topics like this one. Actually, I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to refine my own understanding of such controversial subjects as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. And my hat's off to for coming up with a novel philosophical approach to the relationship between world-causing Energy & world-modeling Consciousness. It points upward toward eternal First Principles, not down to unstable ever-changing Matter. Apparently, doctrinaire Materialists equate Metaphysics with dogmatic theistic Religion, instead of open-minded agnostic Philosophy*1.
The topic of this thread is right down my alley*2, because both Quantum Physics and Information Theory have pointed toward a Monistic worldview, in which everything in the world, including Minds & Bodies, consists of evolved configurations (forms) of a Single Primordial First Cause, that Cosmologists are still looking for. But the scientific search runs into a brick wall at the Planck Time*4, leaving us with an ellipsis of conjecture about the time before Time*5. I don't expect the average TPF poster to be familiar with the scientific & philosophical speculation on the Big Before. So I try to patiently force-feed a few bits & pieces of the Cosmos & Consciousness puzzle into mundane materialistic minds. Sadly, you can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him think. :smile:
*1. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, actuality, and possibility. ___Wiki
*2. Quote from OP :
Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? Could the sensation of existing simply be energy organised in a particular relationship to matter, or to it's other forms, or to both?
Note --- In my thesis the organizer of matter is something like a creative computer program, which I call EnFormAction (energy + pattern + causation). Materialism takes malleable Matter as elemental. But my thesis takes causal & organizing Energy as fundamental.
*3. First Cause : Potential, not Spiritual
*4. Big Bang models back to Planck time :
Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html
Note --- That primordial Force was not kinetic Energy in the modern sense, but something like Generic Cause of Change, which I call EnFormAction, combining the act of causation with the organized forms of matter that result. You won't find that term in textbooks.
*5. Did spacetime start with the Big bang? :
[i]So General Relativity has not been able to predict (or retrodict) what happens before, or how this process really began. . . . .
However in the last few years, several mathematical cosmologists have taken seriously the idea that there was a Pre-Big Bang.[/i]
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/did-spacetime-start-with-the-big-bang
I got side-tracked from your original question, by push-back from those who feel that sub-atomic Physics and Meta-Physics are inappropriate reference-material for a (linguistic???) philosophical discussion.
Have you learned anything from this thread? Have you come closer to an answer to the question about physically or metaphorically equating Energy & Consciousness? FWIW, I have given that relationship some thought, as expressed in the ruminations below. :smile:
Mind as a Causal Force :
[i]Functions don't exist apart from their physical systems, but they are clearly not properties of any single component. They also don't exist in isolation. For example, the function of a hammer is defined in relation to hands & nails. Likewise, a Mind is a function of whole brains, not neurons of systems, not cogs. Yet, it seems that anything physical has the potential to produce Mind, but only when organized & actualized into complex mechanisms that act together in concert for collective goals & purposes.
Hence, Mind is an emergent quality of physical systems, yet is not a physical property of any of their atoms or subsystems. Matter is what a brain is made of, but Mind is what it does. Functions are also dynamic & emergent, not static features of matter. They require time & change to reveal their immaterial existence.
If we begin with the current materialistic scientific paradigm --- that reality is created by self-existent physical energy that somehow regulates itself (laws) --- then the emergence of non-physical Mind will remain a mystery. But, if we place Mind at the beginning, instead of the end of evolution, the story makes more sense. Mind is creative in the abstract, but it is also a causal force --- like a processing program --- in the concrete world. Mind manipulates information, which is the essence of energy.[/i]
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html
mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
Did you read Vopson's paper, The Information Catastrophe?
[quote=SciLight Volume 2022, Issue 9A by Avery Thompson] A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one.[/quote]
The Information Catastrophe, Melvin M. Vopson
[quote=Melvin Vopson]The total calculated mass of all the information we
produce yearly on Earth at present is 23.3 ? 10-17 Kg. This is extremely insignificant
and impossible to notice. For comparison, this mass is 1000 billion times smaller than
the mass of single grain of rice, or about the mass of one E.coli bacteria [26]. It will
take longer than the age of the Universe to produce 1Kg of information mass.[/quote]
[quote=Melvin Vopson]In terms of digital data, the mass-energy-information equivalence
principle formulated in 2019 has not been yet verified experimentally, but assuming
this is correct, then in not a very distant future, most of the planets mass will be made
up of bits of information. Applying the law of conservation in conjunction with the
mass-energy-information equivalence principle, it means that the mass of the planet is
unchanged over time. However, our technological progress inverts radically the
distribution of the Earths matter from predominantly ordinary matter, to the fifth
form of digital information matter. [/quote]
Vopson's paper here reads like a wacky sci-fi premise, projecting an exponential impossibility. How could information mass replace the normal mass of the Earth because of computers, yet register no measurable change? My question would be, where or how does the mass of this information reside in time and space as a physical entity -- what particles carry it?
I feel lost in the wacky sauce.
In physics the concept of energy is used to describe the sufficient reasons for the behaviour of observable entities that are supposed to underlie the experience of those behaviours.
Yet the concept of energy derives from experience itself, and already here we have the answer to your question, since experience is a part of consciousness and energy (as concept) is abstracted from experience so must it indeed apply to consciousness.
The actual contentious question becomes whether this additional form of energy exists differentiated in the same way we differentiate them, I would argue it could not possibly do so, and that each of these underlying energies are one and the same thing (gravity, nuclear power, atomic spin etc.), consequences of the diminution of a singular distribute of substance and are not differentiated in themselves at all.
I will only provide one argument for this assertion for now, it goes like this: all we know or could ever possibly know and indeed all we could think or could ever possibly think would only need one form of differentiation, and that differentiation is the very first aspect/principle of any conceivable thought, without evidence why differentiation should not only be the primary function of a living, perceiving or thinking being but also extend beyond such a being there is no reason to believe so.
I conclude that though the energy field outside of consciousness may be a quantity of a singular substance (a quantity of itself), by application of the Kantian duality of intensive and extensive magnitude I believe we can be far more justified in saying that the independency of the energy field that serve as sufficient reason for motion can be a quantity of itself at any given point of time without therefore having to be completely different kinds of things the way we can experience white as an intense light as opposed to a dim light without the white being therefore a different thing and being therewith differentiated.
I will go into more detail if someone wants to hear more or want to rebut something I said above.
How do you know this? Which came first, energy or the experience of energy?
Quoting Julian August
It is very likely that energy is employed by consciousness as consciousness does work or is a result of brain process or the brain doing work. I agree with your conclusion that mind/body duality is very unlikely indeed (at least I think that is your conclusion) but I don't agree with the argument you use to get there. Perhaps I am not fully understanding the logic of your argument.
Is it basically that energy has different forms/states, but it all may well come from a single underlying form or state. Human consciousness will employ energy, but the 'changed state' or 'form' of that energy within human consciousness, does not exist independently, outwith the brain.
I don't think your 'energy/experience' connection adds anything new or substantial to support the claims against dualism.
Energy, as a concept, is either derived independently or dependently on experience, energy could very well precede all experiences as I am sure a dualist would think being the case, without that having any bearing on whether the concept of energy were derived a priori.
So your follow-up question is a separate issue, you are here referring to the problem of whether time and therewith a rate of time can exist independently of experience, this seems to be the case, it even seems necessary.
Quoting universeness
I am merely stating that we should not start our philosophical efforts without knowing where we got our concepts, and when we do gain that knowledge ask ourself how we justified taking the step of using our concept beyond the material/substance/subject/substrate from where we abstracted it, this is the essence of Kants Critique of Pure Reason from my reading of it.
Different people and fields uses the same word for different concepts, this sometimes makes these conversations harder than they need to be, yet at the same time these different perspectives will claim that they have the "right" interpretation of what the concept were supposed to mean initially, as has happened with the term "energy" in physics and not without good reasons.
I am a dualist, and I believe we are describing that other thing when in physics we are justifying our conclusions for why something X (unobserved) were a sufficient reason for something Y (either observed or unobserved), while our efforts will ultimately be in vain for our descriptions and schematics will never even be anything like that other thing.
No, 'derived independently' or 'dependently' are not the only possibilities. Energy as an existent rather than as a concept, has not proven itself to be completely 'derivable' at all, so far, by our scientific efforts. I use the term 'derive' in line with a definition such as:
"derived; deriving. transitive verb. : to take, receive, or obtain, especially from a specified source. specifically : to obtain (a chemical substance) actually or theoretically from a parent substance."
Energy may be, as suggested in some such theory as Roger Penrose's CCC, basically, eternally cyclical, in state and form.
Quoting Julian August
No, any notion of derivation or differentiation or energy changing state, cannot be independent of time, as such takes time to happen. It does not matter whether or not, you conceive time as each human beings independent, (observational reference frame) relative experience of time, or you insist that time has a 'universal' reference frame, that applies to every point in the universe, regardless of whether or not lifeforms such as humans exist to 'think about' such. For me, this is only plausible if an 'outside' of the universe exists.
Quoting Julian August
I agree that nomenclature and definition of terminology is very problematic.
Obtaining clarity of understanding of the terminology being used by all participants in any debate is rarely achieved.
Quoting Julian August
Thanks for declaring your position as a dualist. It is not a position I currently assign any credence to, but that is no measure of whether dualism is true or not.
You seem to interpret Vopson's "premise" as a scenario of "weird" massless Information somehow magically transforming into spooky "information mass". I don't read it that way. I think he was saying that information is naturally converted into "normal mass". Presumably in a manner similar to the way massless Photons convert their Potential energy into the measurable mass we call Matter : E=MC^2.
Admittedly, Einstein's equation doesn't make sense in terms of Classical Physics. And he didn't specify the steps between Potential and Actual. All we know is that the math adds up. Which is why his radical new Physics of Relativity --- contra Newton's Absolute Physics--- was grudgingly accepted by physicists.
As to the question of "no measurable change", I suppose the scientists are dealing with the same Measurement Problem*1 of quantum physics. The math deals with Statistical possibilities, not Actual observable facts. Once they figure-out how to create an experimental set-up, the end product could just be weighted on a mass spectrometer ; an indirect measurement.
Please note that some professional physicists*2 are now equating massless Energy, not just with Matter, but with massless mental/mathematical Information. It may be counter-intuitive, but do you really think that scientific/philosophical hypothesis qualifies as "a wacky sci-fi premise". :smile:
PS___ A massless Photon is not a particle of Matter until it slows down and gains weight, so to speak*3. Until then, it's merely a statistical abstraction, and undetectable. Perhaps a massless Bit of Information is also nothing-but mathematical/mental Theory until it gains velocity and mass in weird physics experiments. :joke:
*1. The Measurement Problem :
Standard quantum mechanics accounts for what happens when you measure a quantum system: essentially, the measurement causes the system's multiple possible states to randomly collapse into one definite state. But this accounting doesn't define what constitutes a measurementhence, the measurement problem.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-theorys-measurement-problem-may-be-a-poison-pill-for-objective-reality/
*2. American Institute of Physics :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
About AIP Publishing :
A wholly owned not-for-profit subsidiary of the American Institute of Physics (AIP), AIP Publishings mission is to advance, promote, and serve the physical sciences for the benefit of humanity by empowering researchers and breaking down barriers to open, equitable research communication. . . . the AIP flagship magazine Physics Today provides high-quality, rigorously peer-reviewed research and insights across the physical sciences,
Note --- A less trivializing meaning of "conjecture" is hypothesis : Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture that can be tested by experiment or observation,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389200/
*3. [i]Why Are Photons Considered Particles? :
It is these units of excitations of the electromagnetic field that we call photons. Like other quantum particles, they are not really particles like miniature cannonballs. Rather, they represent the smallest indivisible unit of interaction with the field.[/i]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/14/why-are-photons-considered-particles/?sh=5ae747e62946
:up: Am done pestering you and offer an apology to @Benj96 for any offense. I just can't understand or follow what is being said.
Is Information the Fifth Form of Matter (Interview with Melvin Vopson, Youtube)
That's OK. No apology needed. It's just par for the course on TPF. I appreciate your honest & humble efforts. Some posters seem less than sincere in their supercilious snarky retorts.
Many of the philosophically astute posters on this forum are limited by their outdated Classical Newtonian Physics (commonsense) worldview (Materialism). Quantum Physics defies commonsense though, and sounds non-sensical to laymen, who have not taken the time to learn how the sub-atomic foundations of material reality are different from the macro (human-scale) world of the five senses. That limitation is not a problem for 98% of the human population. But those who study Science and Philosophy --- especially Quantum & Information Theory --- would be handicapped by a 17th century understanding of the physical world.
Quantum physics studies the unseen world beneath our animal senses. Apparently, you have to be a little weird to stick your mind into such dark places. :smile:
Quantum Physics is bullshit :
Lawrence Krauss has the best response - "So arguing that it doesn't make sense to you, is . . . . based on the assumption that you know what is sensible in advance. We don't know what is sensible in advance. Until we explore the world around us. Our common sense derives from the fact that we evolved on the savannah in Africa to avoid lions. Not to understand quantum mechanics, for example. As I have often said, common sense deductions might suggest that you cannot be in two places at once. That is crazy. But of course not only can an electron be but it is. It doesn't make sense because we didn't evolve to know about it, we've learned about it. We forced our idea of common sense to change, its called learning."
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2gsqw3/cmv_quantum_physics_is_bullshit/
Quantum mechanics is a physical theory developed in the 1920s to account for the behavior of matter on the atomic scale. It has subsequently been developed into arguably the most empirically successful theory in the history of physics.
https://iep.utm.edu/int-qm/
Yes. As it stands, I believe energy requires to transmute into a form that it can interact with. Because information can only arise from interactions between things. No interaction, no information. And at speed C energy cannot interact with itself.
Mass is significantly more sluggish (inertia) than the massless energy hurtling at speed C. Mass is also stable and has duration through time and so can store information (a continuum of modification) And it can arise from free energy (E=mc2).
Consciousness requires this: this mass to store memory and therefore open up the ability to perceive chronological time; as well as an environment rich in free energy to subject that matter to modification - be it more stable or more unstable (natural selection and evolution).
The stage is then set for increasing complexity of energetic-mass interactions and refinement of both sensitivity to information and storage of information or "awareness" - knowledge and the sensorium.
Consciousness then for me is the natural result of the relativistic interplay between material and it's counterpart free energy and the information carried in that process of interaction.
Consciousness would be less a form of energy but rather an emergent property of 2 forms of energy (matter and heat/light) interacting under the process of natural selection.
Just as water is an emergent property of hydrogen and oxygens interactions.
More important, their catcher for a career that included three MVPs and ten World Series rings.
Quoting ucarr
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical."
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
The guy is genius!
:up:
Hopefully it's actually quite simple, maybe something like when computers process/erase information, particles (matter/anti-matter pairs) make a brief appearance. This would be compatible with his information catastrophe idea, possibly.
The mass of information, however it comes into being, seems negligible if it comes by way of electrons.
[quote=ChatGPT]In practical terms, when considering the mass of a hydrogen atom, you can often neglect the mass of the electron compared to the mass of the proton. The mass of the hydrogen atom is essentially the mass of the proton. [/quote]