Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
Do Ideas exist independently of human perception? Or do Ideas exist only within the confines of human perception? Or is there a third option?
The following assumes that (1) energy exists, (2) the Universe is solely composed of energy [see Note 1 below], (3) energy manifests in a myriad of forms, and (4) any particular form of energy is Real in the sense that it exists. [A physicist’s definition of energy as a property or attribute is considered in Note 5.]
It is manifest that human perception can manipulate Ideas. This implies that (5) Ideas exist, (6) Ideas are necessarily composed of energy, (7) Ideas are perceptually distinguishable from each other, (8) to be distinguishable, Ideas must have relatively unique energetic forms/definitions, and (9) Ideas, like other forms of energy, are Real.
So how do Ideas manifest themselves? What are they? Where are they?
Perception, and in using that term I am including rational thinking, is a process that organizes energy into forms/definitions called Ideas, and because Ideas require other Ideas for their definition, perception organizes energy into IdeaContexts ("ICs" for short). Each IC is an integrated circuit that shares corresponding “analogous” elements among its composing definitions; essentially, each definition in an IC is itself composed of element definitions, and analogies are formed when one or more definitional elements match/meld - i.e., when definitional elements are shared.
Shared elements can be directly compositional (Level 1), or indirectly compositional, producing analogies that illuminate an element of a form in a range of intensities that can be described as informative/emphatic, imprecise, ambiguous, fuzzy, ridiculous (Levels 2, 3...x). For example, the anatomical IC definition of a human foot includes foot, toes, arches, bones, appendage, etc. But the generic IC definition of foot includes claw, talon, hoof, paw, appendage, 12 inches, base, etc. Each of the generic non-human definitions is itself an IC that includes “foot” among its distinguishing elements; “foot” is the shared element between the anatomical and generic ICs, and the other elements in those ICs form indirect similes or metaphors with “human foot” and direct and indirect ICs with each other.
It is helpful to visualize this intersection/interplay of ICs as architectures linked by Levels of shared elements that wend pathways through perception, pathways that are themselves ICs. To visualize how links might work, view them as matching musical notes, or as tones and overtones/partials – or in neural terms, as composite electrical waveforms [See Note 2]. When ICs are viewed as Real, perception becomes a dimensional architecture of cohering pathways.
ICs have relative sizes: God (defined as all knowing, all powerful) is the ultimate IC, and domain, phyla, and species, along with battleships, yachts, and canoes, not to mention 3,2,1, are smaller ICs within the God IC. This approach describes a perceptual ranking of power relationships. Bigger, smaller, equal ICs sorted by rational (“ratio“) thinking, which is a procedural embodiment of the greater including/influencing the lesser.
Now we can consider two additional questions:
Do power relationships (inspired by colliding galaxies, exploding stars, asteroid events, etc.) exist in the Universe? If so, did those relationships exist prior to human perception? If you answer yes to both questions, then what we call Ideas, the Universe calls power relationships.
Distilling, (1) Ideas exist, (2) Ideas have distinguishable forms, (3) perception is the process that organizes these forms, and (4 ) relationships among these forms create networks of perception. Networks of Meaning.
The relationships among forms are ordered by the “power” of the forms, where power is manifested by the greater including the lesser, completely or partially. Think hierarchies. Think branches (including lateral thinking). Think quantification. Think a geometry of Ideas.
Essentially, Ideas have a “weighted” value relative to the context (an IC composed of other ICs) being examined – that is, relative to the examined context’s ratios of Idea relationships.
This approach suggests the following:
If relationships among Ideas *about Reality* are the realm of Philosophy, and the energy relationships *that constitute Reality* are the realm of Physics, then Physics is the true foundation of Philosophy.
As for the third option posed at the beginning of this post: Energy is the sole substance of the Universe. Perception translates the power relationships that inspire energy into Ideas. The Universe accessible to perception is a continuum of Ideas.
Which implies that Perception divides what is undivided.
So, after all that, do you agree that Physics is the true foundation of Philosophy? Putting a football helmet on now....
Note 1: It seems appropriate to offer at least some evidence that energy, manifested in all its forms, is the sole substance of the Universe.
The following excerpt is from an article entitled The Life Cycle of Galaxies by Guinevere Kauffmann and Frank van den Bosch that appeared in Majestic Universe, an October 2001 special issue of Scientific American.
Galactic Density Variations: “Density variations in the pregalactic followed a pattern that facilitated the formation of protogalaxies. The variations were composed of waves of various wavelengths in a pattern that music connoisseurs will recognize as “pink noise.” [Indeed, they originated as sound waves in the primordial plasma*.] A small wave was superimposed on a slightly larger wave, which was superimposed on an even larger wave, and so on. Therefore, the highest density occurred over the smallest regions. These regions collapsed first and became the building blocks for larger structures.”
*As per an experiment in 2021 at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN referencing the primordial plasma: “We have studied a substance called Quark-Gluon Plasma which was the only matter, that existed during the first microsecond of Big Bang.” [Quote reproduced as written.] You Zhou, Associate Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
Note 2: Neurons communicate via electrical waveforms – “brain waves”. Composites of neural waveforms are the substance we call Ideas. An electrical waveform is a manifestation of energy.
Note 3: I do not take credit for recognizing the word “ratio” inside rational. I can’t find my copy to confirm, but I’m fairly sure I saw it in Charles Seife’s Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. As I remember, he dropped that nugget without a lot of fanfare, so maybe it has been kicking around for a while. If not, he gets the credit.
Note 4: Energy, in all its forms, is all pervasive. It is a Level 1 element in the backbone definition of any entity, abstract or material. It is the sine qua non that directly connects every definition, whether explicitly stated or not, because definitions are manifestations of a perception that is itself composed of energy.
Note 5: It is my understanding that physicists define energy as a property or attribute of a form as opposed to defining energy as a sine qua non first principle of a form. Physicists create this distinction to quantify an aspect of energy, which serves a purpose. But other than semantics, I see no practical difference between a manifested form of energy and a form that manifests energy; one uses quantified energy as the base context, the other uses form as the base context, and both require the other for definition, which is to say there are no elements in one context that are not shared with the other. And not to belabor this, but I don’t know how any form can even exist if it is not composed of --- is not a manifestation of --- energy. Defining energy as a property instead of as a first principle serves a utilitarian purpose, but that purpose is an informative Level 2 context that shares elements with a base Level 1 form that manifests the energy being measured. Recognizing the role of shared elements in perception offers a structure to perception that can resolve the current fundamental dichotomy between Philosophy and Physics, with the goal of potentially filling some of the endless rabbit holes that plague Philosophy.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
We can see that materialism is utterly flawed. The abstract, Platonic world of ideas may have come connections to the physical universe, but that is not necessary.wikipedia wrote:Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
Philosophy is an exercise in pure reason, i.e. synthetic statements a priori, in Kant's lingo. Therefore, unlike mathematics -- which is of a similar abstract nature -- physics is irrelevant in philosophy.
The "mind" is not relevant either, because all objectively shareable statements in philosophy can be shared -- and often even be verified -- by using computer systems. Hence, psychology is also irrelevant in philosophy.
Philosophy -- just like mathematics -- is pure, i.e. free from physical-world observable input. Physics is always impure, i.e. it must use physical-world observable input. Therefore, philosophy and physics are in some way each other's opposites.
Hence physics -- unlike mathematics -- has absolutely no place in philosophy.
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
Hello heracleitos. I form a connection between physics and philosophy because physics expresses its findings via mathematics, and its findings are mathematical measurements of the interactions of energy, and thoughts (as described in this OP) are mathematical ratios of energy forms. While to me this is defensible, I recognize there are other schools of thought about this.heracleitos wrote: ↑October 15th, 2022, 5:39 am If we look at the following (rather vague) definition for philosophy:
We can see that materialism is utterly flawed. The abstract, Platonic world of ideas may have come connections to the physical universe, but that is not necessary.wikipedia wrote:Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
Philosophy is an exercise in pure reason, i.e. synthetic statements a priori, in Kant's lingo. Therefore, unlike mathematics -- which is of a similar abstract nature -- physics is irrelevant in philosophy.
The "mind" is not relevant either, because all objectively shareable statements in philosophy can be shared -- and often even be verified -- by using computer systems. Hence, psychology is also irrelevant in philosophy.
Philosophy -- just like mathematics -- is pure, i.e. free from physical-world observable input. Physics is always impure, i.e. it must use physical-world observable input. Therefore, philosophy and physics are in some way each other's opposites.
Hence physics -- unlike mathematics -- has absolutely no place in philosophy.
My approach is not to disparage pure reason – I take mathematics to be the purest form of reason - but rather to look at the nature of reason at the level of idea composition.
I think our paths diverge at physics “must use physical-world observable input”. I broaden the operations of physics to include both the physical and mental worlds.
Questions of materialism, like anything else, are questions of definition. My definition of materialism is that energy, in all its manifestations, is the material substance of the Universe. I recognize that there are other definitions for materialism, such as yours, that lead to conclusions other than mine.
- UniversalAlien
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
Meta Island wrote: ↑October 15th, 2022, 11:15 amHello heracleitos. I form a connection between physics and philosophy because physics expresses its findings via mathematics, and its findings are mathematical measurements of the interactions of energy, and thoughts (as described in this OP) are mathematical ratios of energy forms. While to me this is defensible, I recognize there are other schools of thought about this.heracleitos wrote: ↑October 15th, 2022, 5:39 am If we look at the following (rather vague) definition for philosophy:
We can see that materialism is utterly flawed. The abstract, Platonic world of ideas may have come connections to the physical universe, but that is not necessary.wikipedia wrote:Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
Philosophy is an exercise in pure reason, i.e. synthetic statements a priori, in Kant's lingo. Therefore, unlike mathematics -- which is of a similar abstract nature -- physics is irrelevant in philosophy.
The "mind" is not relevant either, because all objectively shareable statements in philosophy can be shared -- and often even be verified -- by using computer systems. Hence, psychology is also irrelevant in philosophy.
Philosophy -- just like mathematics -- is pure, i.e. free from physical-world observable input. Physics is always impure, i.e. it must use physical-world observable input. Therefore, philosophy and physics are in some way each other's opposites.
Hence physics -- unlike mathematics -- has absolutely no place in philosophy.
My approach is not to disparage pure reason – I take mathematics to be the purest form of reason - but rather to look at the nature of reason at the level of idea composition.
I think our paths diverge at physics “must use physical-world observable input”. I broaden the operations of physics to include both the physical and mental worlds.
Questions of materialism, like anything else, are questions of definition. My definition of materialism is that energy, in all its manifestations, is the material substance of the Universe. I recognize that there are other definitions for materialism, such as yours, that lead to conclusions other than mine.
Here is the problem with your assertions - based upon 'energy'
Your making the unprovable assertion that 'energy' exists a priori - which of course is possible - but how are you going to prove this?
You need a mind, your mind, to prove anything - You say mind is based upon energy - But the fact is energy is unknown without
a mind to perceive - Mind therefor is the only a priori not energy
But I do like combining physics and philosophy and my favorite physicist and sometimes philosopher is the very famous
Max Planck, founder of Quantum Mechanics, and one of my favorite quotes of his is this one:
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
Physics as a cornerstone of science and understanding how material reality works is essential. If anything, the quantum universe, opened up by Einstein and others, such as David Bohm and Fritjof Capra may have made it so much more complicated, with the quantum world making matter and 'reality' far less 'solid'. This may have lead to shifts in philosophical thinking, making it appear more as processes, relationships and systems. This is important as a basis for thinking about 'reality' and, in this way, physics is important for the understanding of how the material world works and for basic assumptions about the universe, especially in the dialogue between materialism and idealism. Beyond this divide, physics is essential to all other sciences, including biology and the science of psychology, meaning that it is the starting point for phenomenological considerations, including qualia and the nature of perception, which is your area of focus.Meta Island wrote: ↑October 14th, 2022, 4:02 pm Ideas are the substance of Philosophy. This is an inquiry into how this substance is formed: an inquiry into what, at essence, Ideas are; how Ideas cohere to each other; and how this coherence forms Meaning.
Do Ideas exist independently of human perception? Or do Ideas exist only within the confines of human perception? Or is there a third option?
The following assumes that (1) energy exists, (2) the Universe is solely composed of energy [see Note 1 below], (3) energy manifests in a myriad of forms, and (4) any particular form of energy is Real in the sense that it exists. [A physicist’s definition of energy as a property or attribute is considered in Note 5.]
It is manifest that human perception can manipulate Ideas. This implies that (5) Ideas exist, (6) Ideas are necessarily composed of energy, (7) Ideas are perceptually distinguishable from each other, (8) to be distinguishable, Ideas must have relatively unique energetic forms/definitions, and (9) Ideas, like other forms of energy, are Real.
So how do Ideas manifest themselves? What are they? Where are they?
Perception, and in using that term I am including rational thinking, is a process that organizes energy into forms/definitions called Ideas, and because Ideas require other Ideas for their definition, perception organizes energy into IdeaContexts ("ICs" for short). Each IC is an integrated circuit that shares corresponding “analogous” elements among its composing definitions; essentially, each definition in an IC is itself composed of element definitions, and analogies are formed when one or more definitional elements match/meld - i.e., when definitional elements are shared.
Shared elements can be directly compositional (Level 1), or indirectly compositional, producing analogies that illuminate an element of a form in a range of intensities that can be described as informative/emphatic, imprecise, ambiguous, fuzzy, ridiculous (Levels 2, 3...x). For example, the anatomical IC definition of a human foot includes foot, toes, arches, bones, appendage, etc. But the generic IC definition of foot includes claw, talon, hoof, paw, appendage, 12 inches, base, etc. Each of the generic non-human definitions is itself an IC that includes “foot” among its distinguishing elements; “foot” is the shared element between the anatomical and generic ICs, and the other elements in those ICs form indirect similes or metaphors with “human foot” and direct and indirect ICs with each other.
It is helpful to visualize this intersection/interplay of ICs as architectures linked by Levels of shared elements that wend pathways through perception, pathways that are themselves ICs. To visualize how links might work, view them as matching musical notes, or as tones and overtones/partials – or in neural terms, as composite electrical waveforms [See Note 2]. When ICs are viewed as Real, perception becomes a dimensional architecture of cohering pathways.
ICs have relative sizes: God (defined as all knowing, all powerful) is the ultimate IC, and domain, phyla, and species, along with battleships, yachts, and canoes, not to mention 3,2,1, are smaller ICs within the God IC. This approach describes a perceptual ranking of power relationships. Bigger, smaller, equal ICs sorted by rational (“ratio“) thinking, which is a procedural embodiment of the greater including/influencing the lesser.
Now we can consider two additional questions:
Do power relationships (inspired by colliding galaxies, exploding stars, asteroid events, etc.) exist in the Universe? If so, did those relationships exist prior to human perception? If you answer yes to both questions, then what we call Ideas, the Universe calls power relationships.
Distilling, (1) Ideas exist, (2) Ideas have distinguishable forms, (3) perception is the process that organizes these forms, and (4 ) relationships among these forms create networks of perception. Networks of Meaning.
The relationships among forms are ordered by the “power” of the forms, where power is manifested by the greater including the lesser, completely or partially. Think hierarchies. Think branches (including lateral thinking). Think quantification. Think a geometry of Ideas.
Essentially, Ideas have a “weighted” value relative to the context (an IC composed of other ICs) being examined – that is, relative to the examined context’s ratios of Idea relationships.
This approach suggests the following:
If relationships among Ideas *about Reality* are the realm of Philosophy, and the energy relationships *that constitute Reality* are the realm of Physics, then Physics is the true foundation of Philosophy.
As for the third option posed at the beginning of this post: Energy is the sole substance of the Universe. Perception translates the power relationships that inspire energy into Ideas. The Universe accessible to perception is a continuum of Ideas.
Which implies that Perception divides what is undivided.
So, after all that, do you agree that Physics is the true foundation of Philosophy? Putting a football helmet on now....
Note 1: It seems appropriate to offer at least some evidence that energy, manifested in all its forms, is the sole substance of the Universe.
The following excerpt is from an article entitled The Life Cycle of Galaxies by Guinevere Kauffmann and Frank van den Bosch that appeared in Majestic Universe, an October 2001 special issue of Scientific American.
Galactic Density Variations: “Density variations in the pregalactic followed a pattern that facilitated the formation of protogalaxies. The variations were composed of waves of various wavelengths in a pattern that music connoisseurs will recognize as “pink noise.” [Indeed, they originated as sound waves in the primordial plasma*.] A small wave was superimposed on a slightly larger wave, which was superimposed on an even larger wave, and so on. Therefore, the highest density occurred over the smallest regions. These regions collapsed first and became the building blocks for larger structures.”
*As per an experiment in 2021 at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN referencing the primordial plasma: “We have studied a substance called Quark-Gluon Plasma which was the only matter, that existed during the first microsecond of Big Bang.” [Quote reproduced as written.] You Zhou, Associate Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
Note 2: Neurons communicate via electrical waveforms – “brain waves”. Composites of neural waveforms are the substance we call Ideas. An electrical waveform is a manifestation of energy.
Note 3: I do not take credit for recognizing the word “ratio” inside rational. I can’t find my copy to confirm, but I’m fairly sure I saw it in Charles Seife’s Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. As I remember, he dropped that nugget without a lot of fanfare, so maybe it has been kicking around for a while. If not, he gets the credit.
Note 4: Energy, in all its forms, is all pervasive. It is a Level 1 element in the backbone definition of any entity, abstract or material. It is the sine qua non that directly connects every definition, whether explicitly stated or not, because definitions are manifestations of a perception that is itself composed of energy.
Note 5: It is my understanding that physicists define energy as a property or attribute of a form as opposed to defining energy as a sine qua non first principle of a form. Physicists create this distinction to quantify an aspect of energy, which serves a purpose. But other than semantics, I see no practical difference between a manifested form of energy and a form that manifests energy; one uses quantified energy as the base context, the other uses form as the base context, and both require the other for definition, which is to say there are no elements in one context that are not shared with the other. And not to belabor this, but I don’t know how any form can even exist if it is not composed of --- is not a manifestation of --- energy. Defining energy as a property instead of as a first principle serves a utilitarian purpose, but that purpose is an informative Level 2 context that shares elements with a base Level 1 form that manifests the energy being measured. Recognizing the role of shared elements in perception offers a structure to perception that can resolve the current fundamental dichotomy between Philosophy and Physics, with the goal of potentially filling some of the endless rabbit holes that plague Philosophy.
Perception may be understood in terms of neuroscience and raises many inherent questions, which may be the scope of metaphysics, as what goes beyond physics. However, it does seem that the nature of physics, especially the laws of the physical world are the philosophical grounding for observation and understanding. It may be a basis for a philosophy of realism, or alternatives, but, nevertheless the understanding of physics, especially in relation to causation, is essential to the understanding of explanatory causation.
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
”UniversalAlien” wrote: Here is the problem with your assertions - based upon 'energy'
Your making the unprovable assertion that 'energy' exists a priori - which of course is possible - but how are you going to prove this?
You need a mind, your mind, to prove anything - You say mind is based upon energy - But the fact is energy is unknown without
a mind to perceive - Mind therefor is the only a priori not energy
Hello UniversalAlien. From an anthropomorphic view of mind, you are correct, but I think it is fair to say that the Universe exhibited power relationships among its elements (i.e., forms of energy) long before a human mind existed. It seems contradictory to me that a human mind (a mind composed of elements born in the Universe, a mind capable of identifying the rules/algorithms that exist in the Universe) in any way utilizes rules/algorithms different from those in the Universe – after all, the mind exists in the Universe, so the mind’s organizing principles, and its products, are part of the Universe. Seeing one as being influenced by the other seems to me more plausible.
I was hoping not to distract from the main points of this OP, but here we go. Following the line of reasoning above, if we say a human mind exhibits intelligence, then by what right do we deny the Universe from having intelligence? Same composing elements, sharing at least some of the same organizing rules. If you want to say the human mind has characteristics the Universe doesn’t, you run into the contradictory issue again. If you want to say a human mind exists distinct from all or part of the Universe, the contradiction is that the human mind accepts inputs from the Universe, whether it is from the shade of a tree or from a photon arriving from a distant star.
So as to the a priori existence of energy, my answer is that energy did not – does not - require human perception for existence. I would say the stronger argument is the other way around.
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
JackDaydream" wrote: Physics as a cornerstone of science and understanding how material reality works is essential. If anything, the quantum universe, opened up by Einstein and others, such as David Bohm and Fritjof Capra may have made it so much more complicated, with the quantum world making matter and 'reality' far less 'solid'. This may have lead to shifts in philosophical thinking, making it appear more as processes, relationships and systems. This is important as a basis for thinking about 'reality' and, in this way, physics is important for the understanding of how the material world works and for basic assumptions about the universe, especially in the dialogue between materialism and idealism.Beyond this divide, physics is essential to all other sciences, including biology and the science of psychology, meaning that it is the starting point for phenomenological considerations, including qualia and the nature of perception, which is your area of focus.
I agree Jack. There is no separation I can see between the operations of Nature and the operations of perception. When perception is interpreting Nature, it is also interpreting itself.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
MetaIsland!Meta Island wrote: ↑October 14th, 2022, 4:02 pm Ideas are the substance of Philosophy. This is an inquiry into how this substance is formed: an inquiry into what, at essence, Ideas are; how Ideas cohere to each other; and how this coherence forms Meaning.
Do Ideas exist independently of human perception? Or do Ideas exist only within the confines of human perception? Or is there a third option?
The following assumes that (1) energy exists, (2) the Universe is solely composed of energy [see Note 1 below], (3) energy manifests in a myriad of forms, and (4) any particular form of energy is Real in the sense that it exists. [A physicist’s definition of energy as a property or attribute is considered in Note 5.]
It is manifest that human perception can manipulate Ideas. This implies that (5) Ideas exist, (6) Ideas are necessarily composed of energy, (7) Ideas are perceptually distinguishable from each other, (8) to be distinguishable, Ideas must have relatively unique energetic forms/definitions, and (9) Ideas, like other forms of energy, are Real.
So how do Ideas manifest themselves? What are they? Where are they?
Perception, and in using that term I am including rational thinking, is a process that organizes energy into forms/definitions called Ideas, and because Ideas require other Ideas for their definition, perception organizes energy into IdeaContexts ("ICs" for short). Each IC is an integrated circuit that shares corresponding “analogous” elements among its composing definitions; essentially, each definition in an IC is itself composed of element definitions, and analogies are formed when one or more definitional elements match/meld - i.e., when definitional elements are shared.
Shared elements can be directly compositional (Level 1), or indirectly compositional, producing analogies that illuminate an element of a form in a range of intensities that can be described as informative/emphatic, imprecise, ambiguous, fuzzy, ridiculous (Levels 2, 3...x). For example, the anatomical IC definition of a human foot includes foot, toes, arches, bones, appendage, etc. But the generic IC definition of foot includes claw, talon, hoof, paw, appendage, 12 inches, base, etc. Each of the generic non-human definitions is itself an IC that includes “foot” among its distinguishing elements; “foot” is the shared element between the anatomical and generic ICs, and the other elements in those ICs form indirect similes or metaphors with “human foot” and direct and indirect ICs with each other.
It is helpful to visualize this intersection/interplay of ICs as architectures linked by Levels of shared elements that wend pathways through perception, pathways that are themselves ICs. To visualize how links might work, view them as matching musical notes, or as tones and overtones/partials – or in neural terms, as composite electrical waveforms [See Note 2]. When ICs are viewed as Real, perception becomes a dimensional architecture of cohering pathways.
ICs have relative sizes: God (defined as all knowing, all powerful) is the ultimate IC, and domain, phyla, and species, along with battleships, yachts, and canoes, not to mention 3,2,1, are smaller ICs within the God IC. This approach describes a perceptual ranking of power relationships. Bigger, smaller, equal ICs sorted by rational (“ratio“) thinking, which is a procedural embodiment of the greater including/influencing the lesser.
Now we can consider two additional questions:
Do power relationships (inspired by colliding galaxies, exploding stars, asteroid events, etc.) exist in the Universe? If so, did those relationships exist prior to human perception? If you answer yes to both questions, then what we call Ideas, the Universe calls power relationships.
Distilling, (1) Ideas exist, (2) Ideas have distinguishable forms, (3) perception is the process that organizes these forms, and (4 ) relationships among these forms create networks of perception. Networks of Meaning.
The relationships among forms are ordered by the “power” of the forms, where power is manifested by the greater including the lesser, completely or partially. Think hierarchies. Think branches (including lateral thinking). Think quantification. Think a geometry of Ideas.
Essentially, Ideas have a “weighted” value relative to the context (an IC composed of other ICs) being examined – that is, relative to the examined context’s ratios of Idea relationships.
This approach suggests the following:
If relationships among Ideas *about Reality* are the realm of Philosophy, and the energy relationships *that constitute Reality* are the realm of Physics, then Physics is the true foundation of Philosophy.
As for the third option posed at the beginning of this post: Energy is the sole substance of the Universe. Perception translates the power relationships that inspire energy into Ideas. The Universe accessible to perception is a continuum of Ideas.
Which implies that Perception divides what is undivided.
So, after all that, do you agree that Physics is the true foundation of Philosophy? Putting a football helmet on now....
Note 1: It seems appropriate to offer at least some evidence that energy, manifested in all its forms, is the sole substance of the Universe.
The following excerpt is from an article entitled The Life Cycle of Galaxies by Guinevere Kauffmann and Frank van den Bosch that appeared in Majestic Universe, an October 2001 special issue of Scientific American.
Galactic Density Variations: “Density variations in the pregalactic followed a pattern that facilitated the formation of protogalaxies. The variations were composed of waves of various wavelengths in a pattern that music connoisseurs will recognize as “pink noise.” [Indeed, they originated as sound waves in the primordial plasma*.] A small wave was superimposed on a slightly larger wave, which was superimposed on an even larger wave, and so on. Therefore, the highest density occurred over the smallest regions. These regions collapsed first and became the building blocks for larger structures.”
*As per an experiment in 2021 at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN referencing the primordial plasma: “We have studied a substance called Quark-Gluon Plasma which was the only matter, that existed during the first microsecond of Big Bang.” [Quote reproduced as written.] You Zhou, Associate Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
Note 2: Neurons communicate via electrical waveforms – “brain waves”. Composites of neural waveforms are the substance we call Ideas. An electrical waveform is a manifestation of energy.
Note 3: I do not take credit for recognizing the word “ratio” inside rational. I can’t find my copy to confirm, but I’m fairly sure I saw it in Charles Seife’s Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. As I remember, he dropped that nugget without a lot of fanfare, so maybe it has been kicking around for a while. If not, he gets the credit.
Note 4: Energy, in all its forms, is all pervasive. It is a Level 1 element in the backbone definition of any entity, abstract or material. It is the sine qua non that directly connects every definition, whether explicitly stated or not, because definitions are manifestations of a perception that is itself composed of energy.
Note 5: It is my understanding that physicists define energy as a property or attribute of a form as opposed to defining energy as a sine qua non first principle of a form. Physicists create this distinction to quantify an aspect of energy, which serves a purpose. But other than semantics, I see no practical difference between a manifested form of energy and a form that manifests energy; one uses quantified energy as the base context, the other uses form as the base context, and both require the other for definition, which is to say there are no elements in one context that are not shared with the other. And not to belabor this, but I don’t know how any form can even exist if it is not composed of --- is not a manifestation of --- energy. Defining energy as a property instead of as a first principle serves a utilitarian purpose, but that purpose is an informative Level 2 context that shares elements with a base Level 1 form that manifests the energy being measured. Recognizing the role of shared elements in perception offers a structure to perception that can resolve the current fundamental dichotomy between Philosophy and Physics, with the goal of potentially filling some of the endless rabbit holes that plague Philosophy.
Just adding some more ideas, have you parsed the meaning behind the concept behind one's own 'object of thought'? Are thoughts in-themselves, physical 'objects' or immaterial ones, or a combination of both?
A common definition of a thought is an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind. It can be said that a thought is just a representation of some-thing. A representation is a likeness—a thing that depicts another thing by having characteristics that correspond to that other thing. For example, a picture, image, imprint, or mold of an object is a representation of that object.
A map is another example of a representation. The mind is a kind of animate map that processes information (thoughts and feeling, wants and needs, etc.). The brain, and its functional product of the mind, is a map of the body’s relation to its external environment. Fundamentally, our thoughts are maps representing and corresponding to things that our brains perceive with our senses, feel with our emotions, and formed as an action plan. Among other things, all of these processes are self-directed and self-organized entities.
Thoughts may be fleeting, or they may later be incorporated into memories. Thoughts that occur independent of us are those that come from our uncontrollable stream of consciousness. As such, a random parade of thoughts and feelings flow uncontrollably or come into existence until we apprehend them with our Will (our volition), based upon some need or purpose or emotional desire. In that context, many thoughts are experienced as 'things' that happen to us, not by us. It is only when our Will causes us to stop the flow, do we really feel self-conscious. But they are not exclusively 'things' in-themselves...they are just representations of things that flow... (?). The questions of how thoughts and feelings cause things to happen, relate to one's own metaphysical Will to be and become. A thing in the mind that has causal power.
Do we need 'objects of thought' for survival, in the sense of them conferring purpose or otherwise 'causative value'? Rhetorically speaking, I suppose so... . But why a parade of thoughts v. thoughts that only correspond to instinctual needs? Thoughts in-themselves must provide for some sense of purpose. Otherwise, existentially, our thoughts can simply cause us to end our lives, should we choose to do so.
Anyway, there is much more to say about this, just wanted to, no pun intended, get your thoughts!
― Albert Einstein
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to define Ideas as forms of energy. Using e=mcc as a context, and perception as a parser, and whatever definition of matter you choose, I suggest that Ideas can be perceived as material objects.3017Metaphysician wrote: Just adding some more ideas, have you parsed the meaning behind the concept behind one's own 'object of thought'? Are thoughts in-themselves, physical 'objects' or immaterial ones, or a combination of both?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
Can you share how ideas, those things-in-themselves, can be perceived as material objects themselves? For instance, if neuron's can be seen as material objects during cognition, are you thinking that captures the nature of the experience itself? Again, just suggesting a starting point example. If you have another theory, by all means please feel free to elucidate...Meta Island wrote: ↑October 19th, 2022, 11:14 amI tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to define Ideas as forms of energy. Using e=mcc as a context, and perception as a parser, and whatever definition of matter you choose, I suggest that Ideas can be perceived as material objects.3017Metaphysician wrote: Just adding some more ideas, have you parsed the meaning behind the concept behind one's own 'object of thought'? Are thoughts in-themselves, physical 'objects' or immaterial ones, or a combination of both?
― Albert Einstein
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
3017, if I understand your question correctly, my answer is that an individual’s perception of an experience is the experience for that person. I obviously cannot and do not say that everyone’s experience of a Picasso painting is the same because no two individuals share the exact same analogous variables – i.e., the exact same definitions/analogies that feed into the IC of the perception. But on an individual level the perception is the experience. Using your terms, for an individual the perception of an experience (the Idea thing-in-itself) and an input like a painting (an external thing-in-itself) is the same. Because the external thing is interpreted differently by different individual perceptions, it is an object with many perceptual dimensions. Further, in terms of perception, all objects, internal (Ideas) and external (objects) are existentially dimensional.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 19th, 2022, 11:38 amCan you share how ideas, those things-in-themselves, can be perceived as material objects themselves? For instance, if neuron's can be seen as material objects during cognition, are you thinking that captures the nature of the experience itself? Again, just suggesting a starting point example. If you have another theory, by all means please feel free to elucidate...Meta Island wrote: ↑October 19th, 2022, 11:14 amI tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to define Ideas as forms of energy. Using e=mcc as a context, and perception as a parser, and whatever definition of matter you choose, I suggest that Ideas can be perceived as material objects.3017Metaphysician wrote: Just adding some more ideas, have you parsed the meaning behind the concept behind one's own 'object of thought'? Are thoughts in-themselves, physical 'objects' or immaterial ones, or a combination of both?
Mathematical processes generally produce objects that are not dimensionally interpreted when its axioms and inputs are commonly agreed on, and when its products are applied to generally agreed upon contexts (I say generally because in advanced fields different interpretations of data are not uncommon until the participants figure things out).
Everything else is up for grabs.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
I think what you are trying to say is that perception requires subject-object. In epistemology, there are sub-branches that capture both an ontological view about the world being in some sense mind-dependent and a corresponding epistemological view that everything we know can be reduced to mental phenomena. First and foremost, "idealism" is a metaphysical doctrine. As an epistemological doctrine, idealism shares a great deal with both empiricism and rationalism. Hence, the subjectivism (subject-object requirement) associated with the perception of a thing is that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience. This activity is what we need to parse.Meta Island wrote: ↑October 19th, 2022, 7:03 pm3017, if I understand your question correctly, my answer is that an individual’s perception of an experience is the experience for that person. I obviously cannot and do not say that everyone’s experience of a Picasso painting is the same because no two individuals share the exact same analogous variables – i.e., the exact same definitions/analogies that feed into the IC of the perception. But on an individual level the perception is the experience. Using your terms, for an individual the perception of an experience (the Idea thing-in-itself) and an input like a painting (an external thing-in-itself) is the same. Because the external thing is interpreted differently by different individual perceptions, it is an object with many perceptual dimensions. Further, in terms of perception, all objects, internal (Ideas) and external (objects) are existentially dimensional.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 19th, 2022, 11:38 amCan you share how ideas, those things-in-themselves, can be perceived as material objects themselves? For instance, if neuron's can be seen as material objects during cognition, are you thinking that captures the nature of the experience itself? Again, just suggesting a starting point example. If you have another theory, by all means please feel free to elucidate...Meta Island wrote: ↑October 19th, 2022, 11:14 amI tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to define Ideas as forms of energy. Using e=mcc as a context, and perception as a parser, and whatever definition of matter you choose, I suggest that Ideas can be perceived as material objects.3017Metaphysician wrote: Just adding some more ideas, have you parsed the meaning behind the concept behind one's own 'object of thought'? Are thoughts in-themselves, physical 'objects' or immaterial ones, or a combination of both?
Mathematical processes generally produce objects that are not dimensionally interpreted when its axioms and inputs are commonly agreed on, and when its products are applied to generally agreed upon contexts (I say generally because in advanced fields different interpretations of data are not uncommon until the participants figure things out).
Everything else is up for grabs.
And so, what we have going on here, is the mental processing of physical objects that produces thoughts and feelings about the object perceived. We are processing information that produces thoughts and feelings. We can store all that information and those representations of physical things/objects in our memory and in our subconscious mind. And the experience of being able to recall those object's, including the associated feelings about them, is what I'm asking you about.
So back to the gist of my question, what part of that experience process is physical, and what part is abstract or 'metaphysical'?
― Albert Einstein
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
Idealism and other “abstractions” like “nothingness” and “geometric point” and the very word “abstract” require other contexts for their definition. All these contexts are physically embodied in physical brainwaves.3017Metaphysician wrote: So back to the gist of my question, what part of that experience process is physical, and what part is abstract or 'metaphysical'?
I think the disconnect we are having is that you see abstractions as non-material, and I see them as embodied brainwaves. The definitions you create can be anything you like – you are without question free to define Idealism as a non-material abstraction. But that is different from the existence of the context of Idealism, which is physical.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
MI!Meta Island wrote: ↑October 20th, 2022, 10:01 pmIdealism and other “abstractions” like “nothingness” and “geometric point” and the very word “abstract” require other contexts for their definition. All these contexts are physically embodied in physical brainwaves.3017Metaphysician wrote: So back to the gist of my question, what part of that experience process is physical, and what part is abstract or 'metaphysical'?
I think the disconnect we are having is that you see abstractions as non-material, and I see them as embodied brainwaves. The definitions you create can be anything you like – you are without question free to define Idealism as a non-material abstraction. But that is different from the existence of the context of Idealism, which is physical.
Sure. Be cautious of dichotomizing reality though. Cognition itself requires both physical and meta-physical processes, quantities and qualities of things, respectively. They are logically necessary. They need each other to make sense of the world as we know it. You know, kind of like the epistemic subject-object dynamic (antinomy). Two opposing elements in nature (hot/cold, good/bad, temporal time/eternal time, love/hate, determinism/indeterminism, chance/choice, conscious/subconscious, so on and so forth) are more often than not required to make sense of the world.
Remember, the complexities associated with self-awareness, self-organized biological systems or entities which are all just part of those mysteries corresponding to the processing of information, is a both/and proposition. As such, making sense of living life is both/and, not either/or. Our conscious/subconscious mind is a prime example of that.
So thus far, the argument in your Op that 'physics' is the foundation of philosophy is really a kind of false dilemma, or at best a kind of half-truth. It leaves out the phenomena of a logically necessary mental experience. The stronger argument would be that the primacy of the mind (idealism), and information processing, is the 'foundation' of both philosophy and reality. Remember, it takes a mind to experience an experience (to cognize), and to experience life itself in order to intellectualize about it.
Think of it this way, a distinct experience of the term 'sound' from its use in physics is that of physiology and psychology, as the term refers to the subject of perception by the brain and the ability to hear a some-thing. Meaning, the quick takeaway is that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it still make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical (sound waves), or the psychophysical definition (qualitative properties), respectively. Living life is both/and phenomena.
Beyond this, the paradox corresponding to physical 'life' before human's emerged or arrived on the scene, is that it required a thinking mind to hypothesize about it. Theories are caused and created by human minds.
Please feel free to poke holes.
― Albert Einstein
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: Physics: The Foundation of Philosophy
3017:3017Metaphyscian wrote: So thus far, the argument in your Op that 'physics' is the foundation of philosophy is really a kind of false dilemma, or at best a kind of half-truth. It leaves out the phenomena of a logically necessary mental experience. The stronger argument would be that the primacy of the mind (idealism), and information processing, is the 'foundation' of both philosophy and reality. Remember, it takes a mind to experience an experience (to cognize), and to experience life itself in order to intellectualize about it.... Theories are caused and created by human minds.
Theories are logical assemblies of Ideas, and Ideas are forms of energy. You are free to say theories must be anthropomorphic in origin, just as I am free to say Ideas, and the methods of assembling Ideas/forms of energy, existed before human perception, and in fact were the source of anthropomorphic perception, and further that this source - the Universe of energy - contains the designs of every human theory extant and to come. To think otherwise would be to imply that theories “created” by human Perception can change the actual Nature of the Universe.
I hope this clearly explains where we both stand. I am open to new angles you may come up with, but I don’t want to rehash the same ground.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023