BothAndBlog Forum

The composition and nature of the stone is a matter for physical chemistry and physics. And it is nowadays well known that minute analysis of the stone reveals ever-smaller components or particles from which it is composed, until the sub-atomic level is reached, at which point the nature of the so-called components of matter, if that is what 'material substance' is supposed to comprise, becomes quite ambiguous. In fact modern sub-atomic physics has not done much to support the kind of 'argument' that Johnson is proposing. — Wayfarer

Did Berkeley in the 18th century have any empirical evidence upon which to base his foresight of "modern subatomic physics" view of Matter? Or was his Idealism a> just intuition or b> expansion on Plato's metaphysics?

We now know that the table before us, that seems to be solid wood, is mostly empty space*1. So the solidity of the "substance" is a sort of illusion conjured by the mind ; but a "stubbornly persistent illusion"*2 that all humans share. That Johnson's rock will resist the impact of a foot is due to immaterial force fields*3, not to Matter in the Democritean sense. Could those invisible-yet-powerful forces & energy & gravity be interpreted in terms of the Mind of God (Universal Mind) binding the world together, perhaps by perceiving or conceiving*4 the cosmos as an integrated whole?

I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just riffing on a theme, and going beyond my scope of meager philosophical knowledge.


*1. Atoms are not the ultimate particle: they are nearly all empty space. This space is filled with electric and magnetic force fields. These fields are incredibly powerful, and hold electrons in their atomic prisons. The fields govern potential energy, and are strong enough to mean that atoms resist like a solid medium.
https://academic.oup.com/book/985/chapt ... m=fulltext

*2. Albert Einstein wrote: “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
https://www.spudart.org/blog/einstein-t ... -illusion/

*3. A force itself isn't "made of" anything tangible, but rather is a concept describing the interaction between objects, resulting from the exchange of particles called bosons, and is mathematically defined as mass multiplied by acceleration (F = ma).
___Google A.I. Overview

*4. According to George Berkeley's philosophical theory, God is the ultimate perceiver, meaning that the world only exists because God is constantly perceiving it; essentially, "to be is to be perceived," and since God always perceives everything, even when humans aren't, the world continues to exist even when no human is observing it
___Google A.I. Overview

I cannot pass through walls, something is there that is not solely mental. — Manuel

That comment is true, but the "something" is not necessarily Matter, and may even be a form of Mind. If the notion of mental matter sounds odd or woo-woo, it's understandable. So, I'll try to explain, but Science and Philosophy tend to focus on opposite sides of this equation. Therefore, this post is a cross-over.

According to modern physics, the something blocking your attempt to pass through the wall is not Matter per se, but Atomic Forces interpenetrating the space between sub-atomic particles : electrons, protons, etc. Those binding & repelling forces are what gives the "appearance of solidity to pure wind"*1. It's the sensation of push-back that makes the wall seem solid, even though its atoms are now known to be 99% empty space. Therefore, Johnson's rock and his shoe were mostly matterless, yet those invisible binding forces cause his foot to bounce-back without penetrating the apparent surface of the stone.

But, what is a Force or Energy? It's not a material substance, but a positive (push) or negative (pull) relationship (statistical ratio), and exists in Potential (available) or Actual (causal) forms*2. And the knowledge of conceptual relationships (yes/no ; on/off ; hot/cold) is what we mentally interpret as meaningful Information*3. Potential (theoretical ; imaginary) energy has no sensable form, but Actual energy can even take on the form of Matter : E=MC^2. Yet we sense Matter directly only as the sensation of weight due to mathematical Mass, or indirectly by the stimulus of reflected light from the force field around the atoms, or by repulsion of a foot, when it attempts to pass between a material rock and an apparent hard place.

What I'm trying to say here is that the "appearance of solidity", and the sensation of weight, and the visual image of a rock, are all mental functions. If you see a gray mass, and you believe it to be solid & heavy, you will refrain from kicking it. Unless, of course, you are trying to demonstrate that something is there "that is not solely mental". You know from personal experience that your mind/body requires a door in order to "pass through a wall". And yet, Quantum Physics has revealed that the subjective Mind can be a causal force*3*4 in sub-atomic physics.

A New Age interpretation of quantum subjectivity --- as illustrated in the movie The Men Who Stare at Goats {video below} --- concluded that since the wall is nothing-but emptiness, it's only an obstacle to those who believe in matter. Conveniently ignoring the real world role of forces. Mass is indeed an abstract mathematical concept, and Matter is a lump of information relationships, but Physics is more-than just an illusion : it keeps us from falling through the floor.

The bottom line here is that Energy/Force/Causation may be a primitive relative of what we understand as Mind*5. Hence, Mind & Matter may both be forms of essential Energy. This Energy-Mind relationship is not well known*6. But, as the 5b link says : "This theory has implications for transforming states of mind and the ethical treatment of all living beings". I apologize for getting so technical, but the relationship between Matter & Mind is a fraught question on this forum. So it might help to get down to fundamentals. Or not . . .


*1. Politics . . . according to Orwell, "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_ ... h_Language

*2a. A force is simply the transfer of energy between kinetic and potential. Energy can exist in so many forms, but the only way between those two is with a force.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf ... a_form_of/
*2b. Force is what accelerates a mass. Energy is a completely different thing, the potential to create a force across some distance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf ... a_form_of/

*3. Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information. . . . . Information is a statistical concept, also in telecommunication engineering, say. It captures the scientific aspect of information, though not its subjective value for human beings.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics

*4. Quantum subjective causality is a philosophical and theoretical framework that explores the role of causality in quantum physics. It combines ideas from quantum information, computer science, and general relativity to explain how causality and time work in the quantum realm.
___Google A.I. Overview

*5. The statement "mind is energy" means that our thoughts, feelings, and consciousness can be understood as a form of energy, as the brain's activity generates electrical impulses and chemical reactions which are essentially energy in action, allowing us to think and experience the world around us; essentially, our mental processes are not separate from physical energy within the body.
___Google A.I. Overview
*5b. The mind is viewed as energies of relationships, with no beginning and no end, that give rise to consciousness in an observer processing change or information from the universe.
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/mind-as-energy/

*6. Interactionism :
In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind, David Chalmers questioned interactionism. In 2002 he listed it along with epiphenomenalism and what he calls "Type-F Monism" as a position worth examining. Rather than invoking two distinct substances, he defines interactionism as the view that "microphysics is not causally closed, and that phenomenal properties play a causal role in affecting the physical world." (See property dualism.) He argues the most plausible place for consciousness to impact physics is the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacti ... y_of_mind)
*6b. Type-F monism is the view that there are phenomenal or at least protophenomenal properties that underlie physical properties like mass and charge. This is a version of panpsychism.
https://philarchive.org/archive/BRODCO

https://youtu.be/zsHBoXfvh-8

What I'm trying to say here is that the "appearance of solidity", and the sensation of weight, and the visual image of a rock, are all mental functions. If you see a gray mass, and you believe it to be solid & massive, you will refrain from kicking it. Unless, of course, you are trying to demonstrate that something is there "that is not solely mental". You know from personal experience that your mind/body requires a door in order to "pass through a wall". — Gnomon
Eddington's Two Tables — Wayfarer

Yes. There's only one table, but there are two different ways of looking at, or thinking about, the table. One perspective is scientific (particles & forces in space) and the other philosophical (appearances & phenomena). Scientists use artificial extensions of human senses in order to study the hidden world beyond surface appearances. Philosophers use the scientific information to look inside the human mind, and to imagine how meta-physical ideas relate to physical reality.

PS___Since I often get negative feedback for my unconventional use of the term "Metaphysics", here's a more modern definition :

Mental Meta-Physics : Beyond the physical :
Metaphysics, by definition, deals with concepts that go beyond the physical world, so "metaphysical mental" implies examining the mind in a way that isn't solely limited to its neurological functions
___Google A.I. Overview

I do agree the world is a construction of the mind. We don't even need metaphysics to establish this, — Manuel

Yes. Biology & Physics give us a look inside the skull of an observer. From those facts we can construct a mechanical model of how the brain produces ideas. However, there remains an unexplained gap, between neuronal networks and mental functions, that Meta-physics can bridge with reasoning & imagination*1.
Note --- See the modern definition of Metaphysics and Wayfarer's link Eddington's Two Tables in my post above. https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/11/ ... wo-tables/


*1. In philosophy, reasoning with imagination is a type of reasoning that uses imagination to draw conclusions from existing evidence. It's a distinct way of reasoning that's not the same as reasoning with doxastic {belief} states
___Google A.I. Overview