The Relational Nature of the Cosmos

[Andy]

@j_j

If you saw Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul, it’s that same team.

Shit, I binge-watched all episodes of Breaking Bad – one of the best series I’ve ever seen.

[j_j]

@Andy

Shit, I binge-watched all episodes of Breaking Bad – one of the best series I’ve ever seen.

I agree. Amazing show. Better Call Saul is great too, functioning as a prequel and sequel.

I love me some great TV. Both Deadwood and The Wire are at the same peak level, IMO. Then we have great comedy shows like Arrested Development and Curb Your Enthusiasm.

[PatternChaser]

@Andy

The universe, I will suggest, is not a collection of things but a network of relations.

@bongofury

Relations between…? Or among…?

Exactly. In accordance with the old programmers’ saying, everything is a network. Or can be viewed as such. A network is a very simple thing, a combination of nodes and connections.

So in this case, the “network of relations” is an incomplete phrase, isn’t it? The “relations” are connections, of course, but where, or what, are the nodes, as bongofury asks? What are the things that the “relations” connect?

[bongofury]

To be fair, he did point in post 7 to something called ontic structural realism where such questions are addressed.

[noAxioms]

@Andy

This is a tangential issue but an interesting contribution.

Hence my calling it a nit.

@Andy

in the case of Hawking radiation the rate of loss of mass of the black hole is so slow that the spacetime is effectively static for the duration of the particle creation process. Would you disagree?

No disagreement, but adding those misleading names only adds confusion. So instead of naming the type of black hole (none of which actually exist, being idealizations), just skip the part in parentheses in that paragraph. No, don’t substitute ‘Vaidya horizon’ since it’s not the point. All this is just my editing suggestion. I’ve not read the whole thing.

Hawking radiation, like Unruh radiation, is a coordinate effect. The distant accelerating observer can in principle observe it, but the space right there looks normal to an inertial observer, which is why no instrumentation can tell you when you cross a BH event horizon. The only way to know is to run a computation and announce when it happens, kind of like crossing international lines while at sea.

[Andy]

@noAxioms

No disagreement, but adding those misleading names only adds confusion. So instead of naming the type of black hole (none of which actually exist, being idealizations), just skip the part in parentheses in that paragraph. No, don’t substitute ‘Vaidya horizon’ since it’s not the point.

I think that’s a fair point. Thanks.

[Joshs]

@Andy

We are not passive witnesses to an objective ‘reality’ but active participants in its construction. The cosmos we inhabit is not given to us; it is constituted by our relationship to the fields, the horizons, and the other observers with whom we share this vast, entangled domain. In the end, physics teaches us that to exist is to be in relation—and that, perhaps, is the deepest lesson of all.

I wonder if you could speak to the issue of relevance and how you see it connected to your idea of existence as being-in-relation. What I get from writers like Wittgenstein and Heidegger is that the the relational nature of the world is only real to the extent that it is meaningful, and it is only meaningful or significant to the extent that its relationality takes the form of patterns of reciprocal causality generating normativity. Matter does just exist as relations , but as relations that matter, that is , that are relevant normatively in some way. Put as a question, are relevance and mattering concepts that only make sense with regard to humans experiencing a world, or so they also apply to the world’s relation to itself?

[Andy]

@Joshs

Matter does just exist as relations , but as relations that matter, that is , that are relevant normatively in some way. Put as a question, are relevance and mattering concepts that only make sense with regard to humans experiencing a world, or so they also apply to the world’s relation to itself?

I’m very encouraged by your appearance here Joshs, and this is a great question. You’ve put your finger on the very ‘ouroboros’ type of issue that intrigues me and that drives me in this pursuit. Understanding the relational nature of the cosmos is the first half of a model that radically changed my perspective, and I do intend to get around to presenting the second half to bring out this aspect.

My intention is to follow up in a similar format when I’ve done all the preparatory work, and I feel unprepared right now to present my case. I hope you’ll bear with me because my reason for being a member of this community is to attract the kind of constructive criticism that will permit me to hone (or even abandon) the view.

[bongofury]

Deleted by posterrrr

[Andy]

You’re suggesting that the neat picture (biology as syntax, semiotics as semantics) doesn’t hold up, because “syntax” already depends on semantic notions like sameness, type, and reference, so the two aren’t as separable as the four-level hierarchy suggests. The very idea of “syntax” (which is supposed to be the meaning-free workhorse doing all the building) already presupposes an act of classification, so the level that was supposed to be semantically innocent (syntax) turns out to be semantically loaded from the start.

The bio-semiotic picture (biology as syntax, semiotics as semantics, meaning emerging cleanly at the top) turns out to have things backwards, or at least circular. It wants meaning to be the product of enough mechanism, but the very identification of mechanism already smuggles in the thing it’s trying to derive.

There’s a bootstrap problem!

You’ve taken the list to a level of analysis that wasn’t intended, but one that does seem to chime with @Joshs 's post 27, and this engages me. Thanks!

[bongofury]

@Andy

The very idea of “syntax” (which is supposed to be the meaning-free workhorse doing all the building) already presupposes an act of classification, so the level that was supposed to be semantically innocent (syntax) turns out to be semantically loaded from the start.

That’s a good summary of my half-composed thoughts, accidentally posted.

Cheers

[Angel]

@Andy

We are not passive witnesses to an objective ‘reality’ but active participants in its construction. The cosmos we inhabit is not given to us; it is constituted by our relationship to the fields, the horizons, and the other observers with whom we share this vast, entangled domain. In the end, physics teaches us that to exist is to be in relation—and that, perhaps, is the deepest lesson of all.

I haven’t read your essay, but I completely agree with the point made in the thread. I love to argue, but in this case, I see no reason for debate or any objections at all – you’ve nailed it.

[Scorpion]

I’m not related to you.

[thibaultebl]

I’m getting into metaphysics lately, to introduce it the right way, I’m going through my uni’s whole metaphysics course. But I still have some unanswered questions.

1. Humans work oppositely, we interact with the physical aspect first, perceive, touch, then we induce the underlying laws. We go from narrow, personal experiences, to wider systems. Does the fact that metaphysic works by deduction and humans by induction create issues ? Is it a source of conflict ?

2. What object benefits from ontological priority but not epistemological priority, or vice versa ? I don’t see how the two - even though they refer to two different things - can be decoupled.

Thanks for your help.

[Andy]

Hi thibaultebl and welcome to the group (feels a bit strange saying that as I’ve not been here very long myself). I have to admit that philosophy is not my subject so I can’t help you with your questions (I came here for help myself!). I suggest you start a new thread with the post you presented here… there are some very helpful people here.

[PatternChaser]

Hi, thibaultebl, and welcome!

@Andy

Hi thibaultebl and welcome to the group (feels a bit strange saying that as I’ve not been here very long myself).

Me too!

********************

@thibaultebl

1. Humans work oppositely, we interact with the physical aspect first, perceive, touch, then we induce the underlying laws. We go from narrow, personal experiences, to wider systems. Does the fact that metaphysic works by deduction and humans by induction create issues ? Is it a source of conflict ?

Metaphysics has long been my favourite branch of philosophy. But I wasn’t aware of deduction or deductive logic playing a prominent role in it?

[thibaultebl]

Hey, sorry, I’ve lacked precision in my phrasing. Metaphysics doesn’t work especially by deduction. I meant that, as we know, metaphysics benefits from an ontological priority (the order of being) and an epistemological priority (the order of scientific justification). Epistemological priority because metaphysics provides the first principles that all sciences presuppose. Metaphysics provides the answer to “what is being”; physics presupposes it and isn’t concerned with that. It forms a sort of chain of sets, going from the widest one, which is metaphysics, to the most particular ones, which can be any specialised science, for example. Then, about the ontological priority, metaphysics is considered the first “philosophy”; it is the main condition of possibility for other regional forms of knowledge to exist. It is first in the order of being; matter didn’t pop up without having extrasensible properties for example.

So we can see a direction going outward, from the wider, universal set to the specialised ones. This is the deduction process I was referring to. Conversely, humans’ first contact with the world is physical: we see a ball, touch it, infer that this object bounces off others, rolls on the ground, etc., and so on. We go from specialised experiences of life to induce more global, underlying laws. This is what I called the induction process. My concern was: given that the epistemological order is given by deduction while humans reach knowledge by induction, is this a source of conflict?

In parallel, I did some research, and this opposition is a famous problem called the “distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification” (Reichenbach, 1938). Thanks for your help.

[WhoKnows]

@Andy

We are not passive witnesses to an objective ‘reality’ but active participants in its construction. The cosmos we inhabit is not given to us; it is constituted by our relationship to the fields, the horizons, and the other observers with whom we share this vast, entangled domain. In the end, physics teaches us that to exist is to be in relation—and that, perhaps, is the deepest lesson of all.

1. The sort of evidence a sceptic calls for in relation to the subject of Intelligent Design.

2. To become conscious of the contents that press outward from the unconscious

3. The universe is not a collection of things but a conversation between observers.

Those 3 words strings have something in common.
The question here is “how to” develop relationship and “with what” exactly.

Because if these " fields" are relational - can be related with - how does one go about reciprocating?

Because what I see herein, is that the fields are mindful and thus - in theory - should be able to communicate.

The idea that - in reality - we all are “active participants in its construction” this is true - BUT are we AWARE that is what we are and are doing, or do we remain largely ignorant of that vaster reality we are part of and just because we are “living” we are participating actively - just not consciously.

The step between the two contrasts involves at least attempting to put into words these things - so thanks for your post @Andy

[Andy]

@WhoKnows

The step between the two contrasts involves at least attempting to put into words these things - so thanks for your post @Andy

You’re welcome. I have noticed that you take an interest in Bernardo Kastrup. Do you also take an interest in Philip Goff?

[WhoKnows]

@Andy

You’re welcome. I have noticed that you take an interest in Bernardo Kastrup. Do you also take an interest in Philip Goff?

No. Bernardo Kastrup is new to me and I am unfamiliar with Philip Goff.