CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
VIRTUALS AND EXISTENTS IN SCIENCE
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.
Existents are in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts) and in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within). Can an existence without parts and exertion of impacts be thought of? Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent.
The Extension-Change kind of existence is what we call Causation, and therefore, every existent is a causal Process in all parts. This is nothing but the Universal Law of Causality. That is, no more do we need to prove causation scientifically. This Law is a pre-scientific and hence physical-ontological Law, meant also for biological existents.
No quantum physics, statistical physics, or quantum cosmology can now declare that certain processes in nature are non-causal or acausal, after having admitted that these processes are in existence!
That is, existents at any level of formation are fully physical, possess at least a minimum of causal connection with others in its environment, are not merely virtual (nor fully modular / non-local / non-emergent / self-emergent / sui generis in a totally isolated manner). Therefore, any existent must have causal connections with its finitely reachable environment and within its inner parts.
Physical-ontologically real generalities must be about, or pertinent to, existents in groups, i.e., as parts of a type / natural kind. These generalities are not existents, but pure ontological universals in natural kinds.
Space and time are just the measurement-based epistemic notions or versions of the more generally physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively. The latter two are generalities of all existent processes, because nothing can exist without these two Categories.
Hence, space and time are not physical-ontological, not real about, not pertinent to, existents. In short, physical science working only on measuremental space-time cannot verify newly discovered energy wavicles and matter particles by use of the physical “properties” they are ascribed to. The reasons are the following.
We can speak not merely of existents but also about their “qualities / universals” and about non-existent “beings” and “properties”. All of them are denotables. Thus, a denotable has reference to something that either (1) has a physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in groups of physical processes but are not themselves a physical body (pure universal qualities of all description), or (3) is non-real, non-existent, and hence just a mere notion (e.g., a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics – i.e., Extension and Change – absolutely different from the existent physical world).
Denotables of type (1) belong to existent realities, namely, physical processes. They are of matter-energy in content, because Extension-Change determine them to be so. To denotables of type (1) belong also theoretically necessary realities, which are composed theoretically of methodical procedures using properties of existents, which, as a rule, (a) may be proved to be existing (i.e., existent unobservables) or (b) may not be proved to be existing (non-existent unobservables, which are just virtual objects) but are necessary for theory (e.g., potential energy).
To type (2) belong those universals that are never proved to exist but belong to all existents of a group as the general qualities of the members. These are termed ontological universals. The denotables of (1b) are the sub-types that are either fully virtual or partially virtual but are necessary for theory. Both are theoretically useful, but are often mistaken as being existents. Denotables of type (3) are nothing, vacuous. These are pure imaginations without any success in being proved to be in existence.
The difference between non-existent, real, virtual, and existent denotables is this:
Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment to existence via Extension and Change. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but do not have the Categorial characteristics, namely, Extension and Change. Existent denotables (a) have these Categories (characteristics), (b) generate ontological commitment to existence, and (c) possess also properties that are conglomerations of many ontological universals. All ontological universals are under obedience to Extension and Change.
Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from those that have been proved as actual existents. They are called in general as unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and partial observables, and are removed from membership in virtuals. Some partial observables may yet be considered as not yet proved to be existent. They happen further to be called unobservable virtuals. Some of them do not at all get the status of existent observables or existent partial observables. They belong to group of purely vacuous notions (3) above.
Theories yield unobservables (electrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, dark energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.
Note that properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics, which latter I call ontological universals, the two most important of which are the Categories: Extension-Change. Instead of being ontological universals, properties are concatenations of ontological universals.
Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations, and most of them do not get proved as existent. Nevertheless, they will continue to be useful virtual worlds for theory from the viewpoint of explanation in a state of affairs where there are no ways of explanation using existent unobservables.
As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties of which physical and social sciences speak a lot, but instead, the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change.
Mere virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to the lacunae in rational imagination. The sciences and many philosophies of the sciences seem not to differentiate between their denotables in the above manner.
I have spoken of universals here, which may fall in distaste for the minds of physicists, scientists of other disciplines, and even for some philosophers. Please note that I have spoken only of the generalities that we are used to speak of regarding existent types of things. I have not brought out here all my theory about kinds of universals.
My claim in the present discussion is only that properties are also just physical virtuals, if we have the unobservables (say, vacuum energy, dark energy, etc.) behind them not fully steeped in physical existence in terms of EXTENSION and CHANGE through experimentally acceptable proofs of existence.
Do we have a science that has succeeded to accept this challenge? Can the scientists of the future accept these criteria for their discoveries?
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Raphael Neelamkavil Knowing and not knowing are divided by the principle that is ultimately a hypothesis.
1. Try to explain a natural phenomenon based on a principle.
2. If there is a contradiction, brush up to a more optimal principle.
this repetition.
Shinsuke Hamaji,
One procedural difficulty in the scientific method that you suggest is this:
We are in fact looking for and treating of rational conclusions from our concepts based on the few layers of sense-based and apparatus-based data, which are based on the few out of the many layers of the phenomena (radiations and indirect approaches by radiations that function as phenomena), which are based on a choice out of the many layers of the object set.
The concept of phenomenon that you spoke of seems to be the same as the object set. The interim layers and the choice out of them are to be managed.
Raphael Neelamkavil No, the principle is layer independent.
Principles that depend on layers need to be brushed up.
Rather, stratification should also be explained by principles.
And what is the principle? The hypothesis? Would you spell out the principle?
Raphael Neelamkavil , If the explanation of the hierarchy by the principle is insufficient, there is a means to analyze it using the hierarchy itself as the principle.
Hierarchical Relativity (HR)｜Hyama Natural Science Research Institute (note.com)
https://note.com/s_hyama/n/n36da9fb827df
I am speaking of the criteria to differentiate between pure virtuals and existent unobservables. Do you mean to treat of the same with the principle you speak of?
Pure virtuals might be conceived as mathematical abstractions that are dispensable heuristic devices; a convenient technical façon de parler that aids the understanding.
Karl Pfeifer, I think it is more than this. In logic, math, science, and imagination we have been creating virtuals. In short, creating virtuals is a strong function of the brain. Hence, we need an explanation from that level, by including the one you said. The explanation, in my opinion, should be systemically formulated.
Raphael Neelamkavil
RE: "creating virtuals is a strong function of the brain. Hence, we need an explanation from that level"
Sounds like you want an explanation in psychological terms? I think that given our brain functions it's often easier to think in concrete terms. So for example, for logics of modalities, it is easier and more convenient to express matters in terms of possible worlds even if strictly speaking one doesn't believe in them. Or in law, it's easier to understand complex legal relationships if expressed in terms of fictional characters such as John Doe and Richard Roe rather than with pronominal or descriptive phrases. I'm skeptical as to whether a useful general explanation (or principle or criterion) can be stated in simple terms. Regarding virtual particles in physics, I guess it's domain specific and ad hoc: you just have to wait for someone to show you can cover the same ground without invoking them (e.g. lattice field theory?).
Karl Pfeifer, I agree that there can be many concrete explanations for the same. Now, take for example the fact that you are also an analytic philosopher. Analytic phil has accepted many scientific results. But that does not mean that analytic phil has been doing science directly.
Similarly, there may be the possibility of doing a physical-ontological explanation where all the "fully acceptable" scientific results are given a place in the explanation, but the explanation is not of that type which we find in the sciences.
The generality that I would claim for it is to be experienced. I think I can finish the book in a month or two, in the English and Italian versions. Currently the labour is on the Italian version. If a publisher accepts to publish both together, I will get it done. If not, they will appear in Amazon.
Title:
CAUSALITY IN PHYSICS, MIND, LANGUAGE, AND AI.
Sub-title (long): ANALYTIC METAPHYSICS OF PROCESS, SPACE-TIME, UNOBSERVABLES, UNIVERSALS, AND VIRTUAL POSSIBLE WORLDS.
I have kept the sub-title long so as to tell the buyer what the content is.
Raphael Neelamkavil , Your classification is similar to elementary particles that cannot be observed in isolation. Its ultimate classification is therefore similar to that of elementary particles. What we can do is to classify what we know and don't know based on the principle, and if we can figure out the ultimate classification method, it can be said that there is no need to make assumptions about the principle.
Shinsuke Hamaji, thanks. One question to clarify: Did you mean assumptions about the principle, or principles as assumptions?
In short, are you critical of what I said, or supportive, or both?
Take a look at the detailed discussions taking place here:
Are information and artificial and biological intelligence non-causal, not based on energy?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_information_and_artificial_and_biological_intelligence_non-causal_not_based_on_energy
Raphael Neelamkavil , Neither of those.
It's just entrusting human ignorance, stupidity, and potential to principles.
My friend Shinsuke Hamaji, THANKS A LOT, THANKS A LOT, THANKS A LOT................
I have revised this discussion's lead text substantially -- just now.
See a response from Leonard Hall on this discussion, but given in my discussion session on Mathematics and Causality: A Systemic Reconciliation.
Leonard Hall added a reply
39 minutes ago
Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,
I have read through your revised basic text and I have found it pleasant, interesting and informative. It is quite readable and I thank you for the effort you expended: it was worth it to me and I enjoy exploring any philosophy I can understand. Your distinctions among denotables and your association of them with the activities of scientists and the real and virtual appearances of the world strike me as a much better treatment, more true-to-life, than earlier posts. Good show!
Of course, I'm still me. I find this post relevant to the ongoing function of scientists in extending and enriching that about which we already know; I remain skeptical about how deeply it may aid discovery of actually new knowledge. However, I do remain confident we will have individuals who cannot suppress it within themselves, aHa! They are rare and open lifetimes of work for others, hopefully the latter under the guidance of your concerns about how to do science well.
Happy Trails, Len
Denotation Versus connotation are only metonymy for virtual-actual duality ,,,,,,,,,,
REZA
I did not speak of denotation and connotation here. But in other discussions I have treated of them. In any case, I have defined them very very clearly and given the contexts in which they occur. They are not just different words for the same thing.
I have revised the lead text above. Just to bring in more clarity. I say this here after one earnest reader suggested yesterday in another discussion session that I inform when I revise the lead text.
How to philosophize? How to philosophize in the sciences?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences
In this context, kindly read this article that appeared in my mobile just now and give your opinions:
Physicists Conduct The Most Massive Test Ever of The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-conduct-the-most-massive-test-ever-of-the-einstein-podolsky-rosen-paradox
Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_Electromagnetic_and_Gravitational_Quanta_EM_Quanta_and_Gravitons_Gravitate_from_Within
I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:
FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
1. INTRODUCTION
I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.
This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.
Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.
A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.
Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities
Virtuals are ontically of "Mathesis" genre ................ Actuals are of ontologically physicalistic nature ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically
Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text
Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist
Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist
The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles
If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism.... and similar to mathematical platonism creating ideas / notions into objects.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences
Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realized manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.
Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences
Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...
Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...
PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers
THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS
3.1. Traditional Physical Categories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics
Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics
Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...
A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs
DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)
THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text
Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough
AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...
WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition
Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS
Can electromagnetic and gravitational "quanta" form an ether-like background for the material part of the cosmos? Can there be interaction between the ether and the cosmos? If there is interaction between them, then every parts of them should interact, since the material part of the cosmos is within the so-called ether part. Then:
Are there consistent physical theories which exclude causality completely from the cosmos? Or, do they exclude causality from some portions of the cosmos and permit it in some other portions of it? In that case, how do they permit any realistic physical connection between the causal portions and non-causal portions of the cosmos?
Now, can the electromagnetic and gravitational "ether" be considered as a mere information, virtual information, etc.? Or, are these really existent energy which, of course, carry information for and from the causal formation of all that they causally affect?
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DOES_CONSCIOUSNESS_EXIST_OR_IS_IT_LIKE_INFORMATION_A_Very_Short_Text_for_Discussion
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science topic