siti wrote:1> A basic rule of Analytic Logic. But it is an assumption that either physical reality or metaphysical "ideality" are ultimately reducible to a set of fundamentally undeniable premises - i.e. axioms. For all we know there may actually be an ad infinitum regress of physical laws/metaphysical axioms. For all we know there may never be (or have been) a temporal or spatial limit of "thing-ness" as opposed to a boundary beyond which there is only "no-thing-ness".
2> Invisibility does not imply non-existence. . . . Perhaps vibrating strings are the information that matter and energy carries around with it. Perhaps there are even deeper layers of the nested realities from which the holons we are able to perceive (yet dimly understand) are synthesized.
1__An infinite regress of natural laws would be meaningless to the finite human mind. Also the seemingly bottomless Real world, as currently presented by Quantum science, may force the average human to give-up on understanding, and just assume that “god did it”. For me, the “turtles all the way down” explanation of reductionism leaves me with no choice but to look-up from the microscope and simply see the big picture. But even if "god did it", there's no reason for us to stop looking for a reductive scientific understanding. Although it has some philosophical appeal, "God" is not a very useful explanation for practical purposes. Newton's "unweaving the rainbow" has actually advanced our understanding and appreciation of the intricate lacelike woof & warp in the fabric of reality.
__For most people, the God concept serves as both an unquestioned assumption and an axiomatic explanation for existence : A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate
. For good reasons, pragmatic Science rejects that unprovable assumption. But philosophy can't so easily avoid grappling with such a many-headed monster.
__The thingness of a string depends on how you define a “thing”. To my mind, sub-atomic Strings are not things in the usual sense, but merely philosophical metaphors for mathematical equations. Mathematics is bound only by pure Logic, apart from impure physical laws or spacetime constraints. Mathematicians refer to the immaterial ideas they work with as “mind objects” to distinguish them from physical objects. In my own theorizing, I make a distinction between Physical “things” and Meta-Physical “ideas”. Our ideas about things include their properties or qualities, which we abstract from reality into our mental laboratories, for analytical dissection. In fact, all we know about Things is their Properties, which are mental concepts. Therefore, all we know about Reality is our own mental model of what we “assume” to be outside our minds. So which is more real, model or assumption? [see below]
__Defining “no-thing-ness” is also a never-ending game. The smallest element of Reality was once presumed to be tiny solid atoms of fundamental substance. But now we have gone several levels below that, and still haven’t struck bedrock. Likewise, the original definition of the Vacuum was no-thing-ness. But now Science tells us that the vacuum is simmering with something . . . something virtual. But is a “virtual” thing a real thing, or just a placeholder for a better understanding in the future? For the purposes of Enformationism
, Virtuality serves as the porous boundary between Reality and Ideality; between potential and actual; between imaginary and observable; between funda-mental substance and physical substance.Thing :
An object is a technical term in philosophy often used in contrast to the term subject. Consciousness is a state of cognition that includes the subject, which can never be doubted as only it can be the one who doubts, and some object or objects that may or may not have real existence without reference to the subject. Metaphysical frameworks also differ in whether they consider objects exist independently of their properties and, if so, in what way.[
. . . Because substances are only experienced through their properties a substance itself is never directly experienced. The problem of substance asks on what basis can one conclude the existence of a substance that cannot be seen or scientifically verified. According to bundle theory, the answer is: none; thus an object is merely its properties.
Some philosophies[which?] include theories of both bodies (physical substances) and minds (mental substances). So the problem of substance arises in both the physical and the mental realms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28philosophy%29
postulates that Information is the "substance" of matter. This notion is derived from the "fact" that matter can be reduced to energy, and energy can be reduced to information, and information can be reduced to relationships, cognitive links between objects or ideas.
2__Non-existence is not in question, merely what kind of existence : temporal or eternal. Invisibility does imply that physical existence is questionable. Is it camouflaged or hidden or “cloaked” or simply not there? Even when we can’t see a thing with our eyes, we can imagine it in our mind’s eye. We can even strongly feel that it is there, even when we can’t see it clearly. Human imagination has dreamed-up a menagerie of occult things and beings, such as unicorns, demons and fairies, which are merely mental rearrangements of concrete things. That’s not the kind of unseen “reality” I’m interested in. Instead, I’m focusing on the qualia and properties that could never exist in the physical world; those of an eternal deity, for instance.
__Strings, or some other metaphorical "things" may well be a part of our reality. But so is Information; which may be the essence of both strings and Reality as a whole. Enformationism
does not deny the Reality that we all experience. It merely connects that perceived reality with a higher category of being, within which all possible realities are "nested". The notion of pure cosmic vibrations has been around for millennia. The Stoics and Neoplatonists used the term logos spermatikos
to label the generative principle of the cosmos; and one manifestation of the Word
was in the form of vibrations, as in the spoken word. A more modern, and less mystical, term for the creative principle of reality is Enformy
, which is the antithesis to Entropy.
__String Theory is often called a "Theory of Everything" because it is supposed to explain everything in existence as a manifestation of musical vibrations. But it's hard to conceive how a one-dimensional string of "nothing" can create matter & energy simply by "spelling" their codes in oscillating tones. Anyway, I suspect there may be some real-world truth to the theory, even though it envisions an unreal and unimaginable realm completely unlike the world we know via our senses.