No evasion. I don't see it as relevant. — T Clark

You're claiming the objectivism of science does not handicap its examination of subjective mind?

I am not a historian, scientist or philosopher. I was simply reflecting on the key issues which today separate the physicalist from the higher consciousness/idealism schools.
I think what I say is accurate... — Tom Storm

I make no commentary upon the accuracy of your reflection.

I think your reflection invokes the historian, in spite of your self-perception as non-historian.

The question simply makes no sense. What could an answer possibly be? "It feels like...?" What words could possibly fill the blank? — Isaac

If I can suppose my personal point of view is modulated by the collective of attributes of my brain-mind, then I have a practical explanation of my personal point of view.

If, moreover, I can simulate the collective of attributes of an individual bat's brain-mind, and if I can immerse myself within that modulating collective, then I can walk a mile in the shoes of that individual bat's brain-mind experience and thus I can know what it feels like to be a particular, individual bat.

I think at this point in history there are a few key issues left to people who wish to find support for higher consciousness/idealism/theism worldviews - the nature of consciousness, and the mysteries of QM, being the most commonly referenced. — Tom Storm

...it has become a 'god of the gaps' style argument, a kind of prophylactic against naturalism and a putative limitation on science and rationalism — Tom Storm

With your statements above, it's my impression you're assuming the role of historian, declaring that non-physicalist world views have entered their "last hurrah" (or echo of "last hurrah") phase.

If, as my per my perception, you see science crowding non-physicalist world views off the legitimate stage of public opinion, then I better understand why Joshs sometimes inveighs against scientism, which one should be careful not to confuse with science.

Subjective mind might not be out of bounds of effective scientific examination, but it shows promise as a good axis for pivoting into examination of scientific boundaries.

I don't want to get into a long discussion about how science has to proceed. — T Clark

Are you not evading an essential problem science (unwittingly) created for itself vis-a-vis study of first person experience when it defined itself as objective examination of entities, phenomena and facts, thus cordoning off itself from the personal mind, a something inherently subjective?

I will say that there is no reason the mind would not be among entities amenable for study by science. — T Clark

Is this declaration not made possible only by the previous evasion?

One radical solution is to say S and P are bound in identity: In some describable way, P is part of S's identity, and the brain/object separation has to be dismissed. — Constance

(Please forgive the following apparent non sequitur) consider that S and P are bound by action-at-a- distance. Can we assume that such binding of identity nonetheless preserves much of the autonomy and self-determination of each correspondent?

Can we hypothesize the brain/object junction is a complex surface with some topology of invariance?

I think you're focusing more on the philosophy of propositions? — frank

This sentence appears to my understanding as a confusion of declaration and question.

I actually suspect that the brain does not produce conscious experience, but rather conditions it. — Constance

Is brain conditioning of conscious experience similar to modulation as, for example, a parallel to frequency modulation of radio waves?

Experience exceeds the physical delimitations of the physical object, the brain. Call it spirit?? — Constance

Does this hypothesis assume a duality of physical delimitations/that which exceeds physical delimitations?

Is the latter what you suggest might be called spirit, thereby attributing to you belief in a physical/spirit duality?

…solipsism is a philosophical thought that proposes that only the self exists, and its experiences such as himself, his place in the world and his perception of the world are either imagined, or else directed illusions.

godmustbeatheist

This definition contains an internal contradiction within the solipsist. He assumes his own existence yet designates his experience of himself as imaginary_illusory. Such extreme skepticism doesn’t allow for the existence of a definite self even as that self has experiences it acknowledges, albeit as imaginary_illusory.

ucarr

solipsism – the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

 The Apple Dictionary

This alternative definition, as applied to the atheist, leads to the statement: the collective selfhood of humanity (on earth) and, beyond that, (possibly in future) the collective selfhood of physicalist sentience throughout the universe is all that can be known to exist.

Theism, for which atheism is the negation, claims there is a cosmic dialogue between sentient humanity and transcendental¬_ universe_God consciousness.

QM provides evidence (at sub-atomic level) of entanglement of observer and observed. There is no isolation. This evidence is consistent with cosmic dialogue. It is anti-consistent with the cosmic solitude of physicalist atheism. The cosmic solitude of atheism positions sentience within a universe according to a bifurcated design that has circumambient universe and sentience separated into isolation. Science adds further demerits to this position with its observations that the physical universe has no center and no boundary.

How does its being cosmic affect this? There is no cosmos in solipsism.

godmustbeatheist

Given the supposition of the dubious self of the solipsist that only the self can be known to exist, that dubious self is the cosmos.

ucarr

Solipsism can exist in the philosophy of a theist and equally in the philosophy of an atheist.

godmustbeatheist

theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures…

 The Apple Dictionary

The above definition of theism, providing a description of dynamic relationship, which is cosmic dialogue_entanglement, sets it apart categorically from atheism, which is human-to-human entanglement only.

Atheism strongly implies a bifurcation of the physics and the circumambient universe. When that bifurcation dissolves, the ensuing entanglement of the physics and the circumambient universe propagates and the cosmic dialogue_entanglement becomes active.

Claiming human is cast in the likeness of God is simultaneously saying human is cast in the image of physical universe.

Denying God separates physicalist humanity from circumambient universe along the axis of cosmic sentience-to-human sentience entanglement. Following from this, isolated physicalist humanity is enclosed within non-sentient circumambient universe of local society amidst cosmic solitude. We see, however, the vitality of organic chemistry towards sentience, and yet atheism says the organic chemistry of the circumambient universe is non-sentient. Atheism equals cosmic solitude.


metaphysics consists of categorical inquiries into reality,

180 Proof

Paradigms sever the induction-deduction oscillation. Only statements the resultants of induction are expressed; no reverse reasoning back to empirical details the resultants of deduction.

ucarr

My guess is that [the rest of] ucarr's statement in the quote makes no sense; someone smart and learned can study and tell whether it's valid or sheer nonsense.

godmustbeatheist

I don't see any "blanks" in what I wrote that need to be filled. — 180 Proof

Context matters. — 180 Proof

Yes, context matters. Induction-deduction oscillation = general ⇔ specific.

When I wrote, “Paradigms sever the induction-deduction oscillation.” I was responding to a series of claims by 180 Proof including, “metaphysics does not consist of factual truth-claims,” and “it’s not theoretical and its expressions are not propositional.”

Given these exclusions, metaphysics, as defined by 180 Proof, operates as a pure model. It’s like the root of a word without its declension, or the infinitive of a verb, without its conjugation.

To claim the results of an examination of essential attributes of existence consist of no factual truth-claims, embody no theories, express no propositions and treat phenomena with broadest brushstrokes is to invoke mystery.

This invocation harks back to ancient times when seekers of truth paid visits to the Oracle for receipt of esoteric pronouncements.

Solipsism excludes community.

Solipsism is not concerned with extraterrestrials.

There is no such thing as interstellar solipsism. — god must be atheist

godmustbeatheist is a witty sitename. Notice how it assumes (ironically) a relationship between God and human. Even when making a little joke at the expense of theism, we have an atheist (I presume) who invokes human-sentience-to-cosmic-sentience entanglement.

While serious, godmustbeatheist notes how solipsism excludes community and is not concerned with extraterrestrials, and then s/he denies interstellar isolation due to solipsism.

I say we're most earnest while joking.

You've taken your time and done a careful job of profiling, per your perceptions, my writing, its meanings and, moreover, you've detailed your inferential conclusions about my intentions and strategies.

A writer whose writing is somewhat queered away from the common sense orthodoxy of its chosen discipline - in this case philosophy - overflowing as it may be (as in my case here) with idiosyncrasies of thought and personality quirks, asks a lot of his readers.

You have delivered. The serious attention of another person is one of the finest things a person can receive and a detailed profile bespeaks close and serious attention. I thank you for it. You could've taken the easy path by standing pat awaiting my implosion from overindulgence of selfish alienating impulses.

Beyond being a critique your statement is a warning. If I don't change my writing I run risk of being seen by consensus as a self-absorbed crackpot willfully peddling what I know to be nonsense. Such indulgence will put me on the permanent-ignore list vis-a-vis justifiably esteemed correspondents such as those participating in this conversation. Even more ominous, moderators, sharing the crackpot consensus, might feel compelled to block such perceived bandwidth-wasting verbiage.

I'm one who can heed warnings.

"Atheism Equals Cosmic Solipsism" As far as I know, solipsism is a philosophical thought that proposes that only the self exists, and its experiences such as himself, his place in the world and his perception of the world are either imagined, or else directed illusions.

How does its being cosmic affect this? There is no cosmos in solipsism.

And why would atheism equal solipsism, cosmic or otherwise? There is no reason to believe that. Atheism is a belief there is no god, there are no gods. This is a far cry from solipsism. Solipsism can exist in the philosophy of a theist and equally in the philosophy of an atheist. Cosmic (?) or otherwise. — god must be atheist

Atheist humans are no less social than all other types of humans. They neither embrace nor propound notions about being alone in the universe. It's not a stretch to suppose some politicians are atheists and, well, politicians are people-persons; they thrive in crowd scenes.

The above declarations pertain to human-to-human interactions. What about humanity-the-collective to cosmos-the-totality-of-creation? At this level I assert that atheism is solipsistic.

This so because human consciousness vis-a-vis the totality of creation must first answer the question posed by the interstellar probe Jimmy Carter sanctioned. He asked, "Is anyone out there?"

Let's assume the answer is "yes." Other sentient (hopefully humanoid) beings are out there. Even so, this only dispels the interstellar solipsism of the human collective vis-a-vis other intra-cosmic sentience.
It still doesn't dispel the cosmic solipsism of atheism because the interstellar collective of sentience
vis-a-vis the cosmos is still alone unless the cosmos (and beyond) is sentient as distinguished from the interstellar collective of sentience, a state of being denied by atheism.

Sidebar - Some will argue atheism takes no position on the cosmos (and beyond) with the exception of an over-arching trans-physical theistic God. I'm still searching for a definition of theism that doesn't apply to all God-concepts. Perhaps evolution might be conceived as a unitary cosmic consciousness. I know, however, that some (if not all) evolutionists reject the notion of teleology (intelligent design) being baked into evolution.

So the atheist dialoguing as s/he does with humanity and perhaps, eventually, interstellar sentience, nonetheless vis-a-vis the cosmos stands alone as denial of cosmos as sentient being means necessarily intra-mural dialoguing within an over-arching physical universe itself forever silent.

Here's where QM comes into the picture and makes things more interesting. QM entanglement of observer_observed suggests (at least sub-atomically) the blurring of the objective/subjective binary. I say the intriguing thing about QM entanglement is its disavowal of any type of solitude.

The sans-solitude of QM via implication tells atheism to stop playacting Hamlet soliloquizing to the heavens about suicidal solitude.

Final Note - When I ran my list of takeaways in response to 180 Proof's carefully worded definition of metaphysics,

As I understand philosophy, "metaphysics" does not consist of factual truth-claims; it's not theoretical and its expressions are not propositional – like poetry – but rather, metaphysics consists of categorical inquiries into reality, insofar as reality both constitutes and encompasses all of our hypothetical inquiries (e.g. formal natural & historical sciences and arts), in order to rationally make sense of – make whole – 'human existence'. The resulting categories, paradigms, criteria, methods, interpretations constitute reflective ways of 'being in the world' (or world-making) but are not themselves demonstrable truth-claims about the world. Thus, for me at least, ucarr, "metaphysical claims", as Witty says, is nonsense. — 180 Proof

I was attempting to give my serious attention to the details of said definition. As we say, I was getting into the weeds. The narrative/counter-narrative is where the action is, man. I suspect all human individuals, when you get into their weeds, are no less weird than the fundamentals of QM. A big part of the trick and fun of debate, for me, entails walking a mile in the other-worldly strangeness of another individual.

I don't see any "blanks" in what I wrote that need to be filled. — 180 Proof

With 180 Proof > a ≠ ucarr > a′ I'm asking you to write a description that elaborates how a ≠ a′, which is to say, 180 Proof's statement a gets turned into ucarr's non-equivalent a.′ I'm asking you to write my straw-man distortion a′ of your original a.

If you'll be specific in this way, I'll best understand the underlying cause of my straw-man distortion.

Below follow my takeaways from your info

"metaphysics" does not consist of factual truth-claims... — 180 Proof

So paradigms can only be supposed without affirmation or refutation.

it's not theoretical and its expressions are not propositional — 180 Proof

Actually no, paradigms cannot even be supposed. Furthermore, paradigms cannot express assertions.

metaphysics consists of categorical inquiries into reality, — 180 Proof

Paradigms sever the induction-deduction oscillation. Only statements the resultants of induction are expressed; no reverse reasoning back to empirical details the resultants of deduction.

reality both constitutes and encompasses all of our hypothetical inquiries — 180 Proof

The resulting categories, paradigms, criteria, methods, interpretations constitute reflective ways of 'being in the world' — 180 Proof

The ontology component of metaphysics dovetails with functionalism. Metaphysics says, "Mentally I am my operational, relatable, useful states."

(...categories, paradigms, criteria, methods, interpretations...) are not themselves demonstrable truth-claims about the world. — 180 Proof

The endgame of metaphysics arrives at axiomatic utterances not parsible into logical expressions. The ground of being is a given. It potentiates analyses but is their unbridgeable limit.

"metaphysical claims... is nonsense. — 180 Proof

Atheism is a 2nd order statement about theism which is a 1st order statement about "god"; the latter is metaphysics (i.e. onto-theology) and the former epistemology / logic. — 180 Proof

Theism is the ground of atheism as arithmetic is the ground of algebra. By algebra I know arithmetic cannot be reduced to logic. So logic too, is grounded by arithmetic. 2nd order expressions convey their meanings through their first order foundations. Because atheism cannot exist without theism, it cannot be categorically separable from theism, thus all atheistic expressions are theistic expressions in the negative.

I suppose you need to reformulate what I've written because it's easier for you to knock down strawmen rather than substantively engage my stated positions — 180 Proof

Of course I reformulate what you've written because that's how I try to substantively engage your stated positions. If I were you and we were me, there'd be just one and thus no dialogue.

My straw-men are caused by cerebral viruses that occasionally infect my thinking with unintentionally flawed interpretations of correspondent's intended meanings.

Below is a piece of your writing I tried to interpret. Help me see what's actually there.

atheism is disbelief in theistic deities (& stories) If the material universe was "created", then an atheist only states "I disbelieve stories of 'the universe created by a theistic deity'" — 180 Proof

Please fill in the blank. 180 Proof > a = atheism is disbelief in theistic deities (& stories); ucarr > a′ = [fill in blank here]

Metaphysical Claim - a declaration of truth about the root causes, designs and operations of the creation as understood to be separate from the mundane world of everyday physics.

“God did not create the material universe.” — ucarr

What happens to the above sentence if I add one of your important adjectives?

“ Theistic God did not create the material universe.” — ucarr

What happens to the first sentence if I add another one of your important adjectives?

“ Deistic God did create the material universe.” — ucarr

My issue with religion is that it unfortunately offers an opportunity to separate people by drawing firm lines in the sand as to what is demanded of one another in terms of belief and custom. — Hanover

I'm here trying to get a better understanding of things. Although it's imprudent to discuss religion, I find trying to understand it is more interesting than ignoring it.

If I make a wrong claim about atheism herein, my correspondents are on the job with pushback. Doing philosophy is the easy part. Getting the attention of correspondents is the hard part. Whereas written statements can only reflect light, live humans with incandescent sentience provide the important thing.

Exchange of ideas stirs thickets of fierce rhetoric. Sometimes I get hit by the verbal shrapnel of serious thought coupled with strong feelings. Sometimes I get hoisted aloft by the nearby landing of someone's witty petard.

Black eyes and fat lips are my tattoos. I always get them en route to grinding out the cognitive gems only I appreciate.

A secular protestant...
— ucarr

It's not always a vacuous culture war out there. — Tom Storm

A secular protestant, lying on his deathbed, in defiance of his own emotional past as a boy raised Catholic, exhorts his parents, wife and children, to their great anguish, not to hold any type of religious services at his funeral. — ucarr

For the sake of clarification, let me add that with my examples to busycuttingcrap I was only trying to show what an atheist might choose to do as observances of his atheism. I acknowledge your examples of atheist behavior demonstrate with equal truth how some atheists behave. I have no opposition to atheists doing these types of things and wouldn't hesitate to socialize with them while they were doing so.

I do think an atheist who, in his socialization with close friends, celebrates Christmas, attends mass and acts as best man at a Christian wedding lacks integrity and honesty if doesn't declare his beliefs beforehand, instead allowing others to assume he shares empathy with their convictions and rituals.

I wasn't asking for definitions of statistical significance or Protestantism, I was asking you what exactly "practicing atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism" involves or consists of. What does this look like, in practice? — busycuttingcrap

A secular protestant, lying on his deathbed, in defiance of his own emotional past as a boy raised Catholic, exhorts his parents, wife and children, to their great anguish, not to hold any type of religious services at his funeral.

A secular protestant breaks off his engagement to a beloved fiance because she and her parents insist upon a church wedding.

A secular protestant eschews observance of Christmas.

Only a "theistic" origin of the universe is "excluded". — 180 Proof

In my Apple Dictionary I see that theism derives from THEÓS or THEOI meaning "god" or "gods." Both theism and deism include God.

Christian Theism believes in an active God who relates with humans as a mentor. Deism believes in a passive God who leaves humans to their own devices.

In either case, God is acknowledged as the creator of the universe. Unless the God of deism is a physical god who created a physical universe, thus rendering deism indistinguishable from materialism, belief in a spirit God as creator is a metaphysical belief. This separates deism from atheism.

Atheism is the negation of acknowledgement of a spirit God as creator. A negation does not negate itself.

If I negate acknowledgement of light as the fastest moving material object in the physical universe, I posit a theory about what is not in the realm of physicalism. It is a physicalist theory.

In parallel, if I negate acknowledgement of a spirit God as creator in the metaphysical realm, I posit a theory about what is not in the realm of the metaphysical. It is a metaphysical theory.

Even if I negate metaphysics entirely, I posit a theory of metaphysics > non-existent.

Negation no less than affirmation attaches itself to the realm about which it posits a theory.

...an atheist only states "I disbelieve stories of 'the universe created by a theistic deity'". This is an epistemological commitment and not a "metaphysical claim" (whatever that means). — 180 Proof

If you turn away from a claim about reality because you are personally repelled by it, but make no commitment about the truth or falsity of the claim, that is doubt. Disbelief cannot be based upon doubt. Disbelief is properly based upon commitment to belief in negation. Committed negation of a transcendent God is a metaphysical claim. If you know there is no spirit realm housing a transcendent creator God, then you're trading in metaphysical coinage and that's a metaphysical claim.

I suspect a statistically significant number (certainly not all) of atheists practice their atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism.
— ucarr

I'm curious what this means, exactly; can you say more? — busycuttingcrap

Statistically significant means a set with a volume of members too large to be unimportant and not worth considering as a factor in collection of numerical data; a group too large to be considered insignificant.

Martin Luther and his followers revolted against the imperious control of the Catholic Church. Those who reject big organized religion in favor of a personal walk with God bolstered by bible readings are Protestants.

A secular protestant is a person who rejects God and the imperious control of organized religion.

Note - I abbreviate consciousness as "cons." -- ucarr

I do not understand atheism as an "ideology" or as derived from "axioms". One who claims, as I do, that theism is demonstrably not true and, therefore, disbelieves in every theistic deity, is an atheist. — 180 Proof

... atheism doesn't dictate any particular position on how (or whether) the universe began... only that whatever it is, God had nothing to do with it. — busycuttingcrap

We know from ourselves that our universe is a consciousness-bearing universe.
— ucarr

I don't dispute this, but others will, so I think that proving this should be your starting point. — RogueAI

↪RogueAI
We know from ourselves that our universe is a consciousness-bearing universe.
— ucarr
I took this as "I am conscious, and I came into being in the Universe, so therefore the Universe is capable of giving rise to something conscious." Which, as far as I know, can't really be proven, only experienced with an n=1. — tomatohorse

"I am conscious, and I came into being in the Universe, so therefore the Universe is capable of giving rise to something conscious." Which, as far as I know, can't really be proven, only experienced with an n=1.
— tomatohorse

That's actually a proof. It is not proven in an a priori way, but in an a posteriori or empirical way, but it's still a proof. — god must be atheist

If human cons can only be verified up to the level of practical experience of the everyday world a posteriori, given its presence in nature, doesn’t that allow, in the absence of preclusion, the possibility it’s source might be super-ordinate WRT nature? I'm not talking about a realm of mysterious power over humanity from on high. By super-ordinate I mean "a thing that represents a superior order or category within a system of classification."

If so, then that location might be supernatural or extra-natural, etc, right? On the other hand, if cons, like matter, takes the default position of having always existed, being neither created nor destroyed, then it’s axiomatic that nature is cons-bearing, right? If that’s so, then science begins with cons as a self-evident truth. From here it follows that axiomatically cons humans cannot, on a logical basis, be uncoupled from a cons sourced outside of nature. Thus a supernaturally-sourced cons cannot be logically excluded.

In spite of my speculations above, I’m in favor of propositional logic elaborating a continuity of symbolically representable expressions following strict rules of inference to the effect of proving nature is cons-bearing. A cons-bearing universe allows human to be Venn-diagramed with a cosmic cons, and that’s evidence of a cosmic dialogue, and that’s more interesting than the cosmic soliloquy of atheism, what with its trace of Hamlet’s suicidal despair (Camus).

Atheism excludes God as creator of the material universe. Does that not make atheism a theory of what the origin of the universe is not? If so, atheism is not independent of metaphysics. It's metaphysical claim says, “God did not create the material universe.”

Even if non-life can be scientifically transformed into life, science cannot explain scientifically the ground of physicality. Thus atheism as to the why and how of existence is no less an article of faith than is theism. Atheism is therefore a type of epistemology.

Atheism is not an ideology? I suspect a statistically significant number (certainly not all) of atheists practice their atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism. They don't want to live under the rule of a dictatorial, humanoid deity whose self-serving morals are brutally mediated by an elite priestly class of
clerics.

I'm trying to approach the premise of a super-ordinate theism from within the field of science.

My main idea herein is drawing a parallel with Riemann's zeta function.

Prime numbers are the axioms of number theory. The Riemann Hypothesis examines this. The zeta function yields primes on a critical line extending along the complex number line. This is where the primes are organized. So far, the critical line appears to be of infinite extent. How does one categorize the entire set mathematically?

I say in parallel axioms are the primes of scientific theory. Within scientific theory, they are the irreducible singularities. Do they too have a mathematical function that produces a critical set of axioms along the complex number plane?

Deus = the axiom plane. As the ground and source of existence, the axiom plane is a transcending, non-local dimensionalizer of actuated possibility.

Deus is uncontainable, even as an abstract concept. That it is super-ordinate to anything is a fiction of language.

Deus is prior to the singularity of the Big Bang.

Deus is evidence numericality is an essential attribute of the material creation. Numbers are discovered, not invented.

Some of the American Founding Fathers embraced an ideology that posits God the creator as the power that designed nature, there after withdrawing to his own council of self-sufficiency. Human was left to tease out the natural attributes by power of reason.

by reason the inherent features of the natural by the power of reason.

Partly for political reasons this ideology sets divine will and reason upon level ground. The Christian mandate for a transcendent God could thereby be somewhat appeased while the human pursuit of reason and practical production thereof could go forward free of incursions by a meddling church.

This ideology is Deism. It is an eighteenth century iteration of intelligent design. It discovers by rational examination teleology within natural processes. The headwaters of reason are acknowledged to be God’s will expressed as axioms funding and organizing the algorithms of rational practice.

Atheism, the ideology of only nature, no God* immerses itself within rational practice with axioms included. Axioms are “explained” as self-evident truths. Self-evident truths are claims of reason without reasoning arguments to support them.

Existence is the limit of reason. With an existing thing embraced as a given, reason proceeds thereof towards myriad permutations of rigorously parsed continuities.

Reasoning upon an existing thing can unfold and compact itself through oscillations that are sometimes deemed natural cycles.

When a new narrative gets expressed such that it turns a curve in the established narrative unfolding from self-evident truths, the comprehensive rational understanding deepens and new tributaries of reasoning emerge. This is a paradigm shift.

A paradigm shift occurs when a new facet of an existing thing flashes its presence like a scintillation into the comprehending mind of a thinking sentient.

Manipulation of permutations of self-evident truth continuities, logic, ranges out from its tether, the axiom. In so doing, logic falls prey to becoming arrogant, believing its axiomatic foundation is another part of itself, albeit a self-sufficient part.

Reason is a derivation of existence that only completes itself in the doing of being as presence. Presence, an existing thing, stands mystical in the pantheon of creation because the knowing of reason doesn’t know whereof presence arises.

Atheism, reason falsely divorced from the inscrutable otherness of axiom, the IAM speak of Deus, talks to itself within the oscillations of self-referential logic. It bites the hand that feeds it, axiom. Instead, it praises itself, swathed in the glowing raiment of self-referentiality. When you deny otherness, self-referentiality is all that remains.

We have thus the Big Bang Theory. This is the grand oscillation of nature. It is a continuity writ large that enfolds itself like a Mobius as it remains silent upon the seminal question of the origin ontology of the singularity.

Shall we intuit the singularity as the axiom of existence of the self-evidently true and physical universe?

*180 Proof

To Joshs,
God_human, though co-created simultaneously, are Venn diagrams, thus overlapped only partially; much of the makeup of each does not overlap. Just as different languages don't translate completely, God_human don't translate completely. This untranslateability entails some of the mystery of otherness.

Eliminate essential mystery and the understanding becomes overburdened. By rubbing against the unknowable, we keep ourselves vital and our imagination fertile.

I know from your writing you already know all of this. I'm just letting you know I too respect some of the essential and necessary contradictions that glitch the complacency of a smooth running understanding.

Is QM's vector-cloud of probability and its collapse not part of the observer effect?
— ucarr
Wtf? — 180 Proof

QM perceives the vagueness of the electron's position within an attached nucleus as a cloud of possible positions of the electron prior to establishment of a definitive valence under observation.

If God was “co-created alongside of human”, what accounts for the dualistic split between the natural( the human as a physical and biological entity) and the spiritual? These two realms seem to be interacting from across an unbridgeable divide. — Joshs

What do you make of the Venn Diagram problem?

What makes scientific naturalism ‘isolated and solipsistic’ if not as
one pole of a nature-spirit dialectic? In other words , don’t we first have to assume your nature-spirit co-creation , and then by subtracting away God arrive at a solipsistic physical nature? — Joshs

Do you find the unparsible nature of axioms interesting? Since nature has no approach to axioms save acknowledgement, there is the implication of duality with respect to origins: a) nature; b) unsearchable self-evident truths as arbitrary starting points for narratives. The natural sentient can decide the source of axioms is a mysterious power beyond the physical world or embrace natural phenomena as a creation of unknowable origin or understand the natural world as an eternal system without origin.

That is, if all there is is the natural , by comparison to what can we call it ‘isolated’? — Joshs

Do you understand the natural world as an eternal system without origin?

Kant made human conceptualization and empirical nature inseparably co-dependent, — Joshs

I see this is Kant's prescient understanding of QM that you told me of earlier.

What's 4D logic? Just curious... — Shawn

It is continuity of spacetime dimensional expansion within a hyper-cube.

Is Shroedinger's cat never super-positioned as a life/death ambiguity?
IIRC, the "live/dead cat" is only a construct within a thought-experiment that makes explicit some of the ways imeasurements of quantum phenomena are epistemically inconsistent with classical physics; the "live/dead cat" is not itself an actual phenomenon. — 180 Proof

I hope you'll agree thought-experiments are road maps to practice and experience. Google's qubit computer is not a thought-experiment. Is it?

I agree with you. Entanglement has all interested parties ruminating. Great!

But how do we know enough about consciousness to recognize it as a player in the universe in relationship to 'physical' components you refer to as accepted facts? — Paine

More than one physicist living today has claimed QM the most experimentally and phenomenally verified scientific theory of all time. Please present your counter-narrative.

Anthromorphizing compositional fallacy at the very least. — 180 Proof

If there's one thing that's not anthropomorphic, it's human consciousness. What does human consciousness look like? Does your sentience, considered as a whole, look like your physical body? Yes, your sentience has an impression of your physical body. Does that motivate you to claim your sentience is a facsimile of your body?

...without a clear conception of "consciousness" either in philosophy or science, the phrase "consciousness-bearing" is uninformative. — 180 Proof

We also know from QM there is crosstalk between observer and observed, thus establishing the essential sociability of both existence and consciousness. — ucarr

Without addressing its veracity, can you elaborate how the above claim is devoid of intelligible content?

The rest of your post, trafficking as it does in pseudo-science / misinterpreting QM's 'observer effect', doesn't make much sense either except maybe as wishful thinking (i.e. "theology"). — 180 Proof

Is QM's vector-cloud of probability and its collapse not part of the observer effect? Is Shroedinger's cat never super-positioned as a life/death ambiguity? Is the wave function not hard to establish and easy to collapse within the lab?

Lastly, I don't recognize the theisms of Abrahamic, Vedic, or any other pagan faiths in your account, ucarr, so on that point, again, I don't know what you mean by "theism" or, for that matter, "atheism". — 180 Proof

Theism claims God-Spirit dwells beyond the natural world and, moreover, causes its histories and experiences as physical events. — ucarr

What is it about the above description of theism you fail to recognize?

Does my premise that atheism, in denying God-Spirit's dwelling outside of the phenomenal universe, (thus rendering it a solitude of self-contained physicalist sentience), position itself as a point of obscurity to you?

Did you not introduce transcendence as what the 'physical' could not provide? — Paine

Life propagating spontaneously from a physical ground is transcendent holism. — ucarr

In the above statement I'm trying to say consciousness is an emergent property of elements and compounds. This claim presumes a physical foundation of awareness that supports it non-reductively. The foundation and the emergent property, being linked, are not mutually exclusive.

How do you know that a 'physical ground' is bereft of life? — Paine

You first suggested I deal in the currency of non-vital substance.

This is the dilemma that both modern religious and scientific thinking has created for itself. — Joshs

...it still insists on deriving this dynamism, interconnectedness and historical becoming from a ground which is anything but dynamic. — Joshs

Why does change have to ‘ come from’ something unchanging , some dead first cause, either nothingness or a God who creates axioms? Isn’t such a creator the essence of solitude and isolation? — Joshs

I have tried to show that God-Spirit is never alone, was co-created alongside of human. I have tried to say identity is socially negotiated by insight of QM. I have placed the self-and-other dialogue at the core of reality. The gist of my premise, that IAM speak forestalls the isolation of solipsism, abhors a vacuum. Where have I said or suggested the creation is static?

How do you know that a 'physical ground' is bereft of life? It seems like you excluded the possibility as an assumption in order to introduce it as a necessity. — Paine

If life has no discrete physical boundaries, does not emerge from non-vital substance, then the universe is wholly alive and the animism of the ancients has always been true. I hold no opposition to this claim. If I have implied otherwise, I have blundered in some of my assumptions and in some of my language.

Premise – {a,b,c} ⇚⇛ a,b,c

Set abc leads to a,b,c as independent members of itself and independent members a,b,c independently and respectively lead to set abc.

Argument

Set abc includes members biology, chemistry, physics. These disciplines are grounded upon general concepts of set abc and are thus members of set abc.

The particulars of each discipline imply, as generalizations, the general concepts of set abc. This allows us to say a,b,c independently and respectively lead to set abc.

The general concepts of set abc lead to the particular applications a,b,c and vice versa.

This argument therefore supports {a,b,c} ⇚⇛ a,b,c.

Conclusion

The greater scope of inclusion (of a set) does not necessarily logically prioritize this set above its members.

The upshot of the above argument is that the discovery of science and the general conceptualization of metaphysics comprise an oscillation between deduction/induction.

The claim made directly below exemplifies with particulars the oscillation between deduction/induction.

Of course a cutting edge philosopher must have absorbed the most most advanced scientific ideas of their day. This is because those sciences are philosophical positions articulated via the conventionalized vocabulary of science. If they don’t, they will simply be repeating what a science has already articulated. The same. is true of science. If an empirical
researcher in psychology or biology has not assimilated
the most advanced thinking available in philosophy they will simply be reinventing the wheel. — Joshs

There is an open, bi-directional flow between the two poles. For these reasons, I claim that physics_metaphysics are logical contemporaries. Anyone who performs both functions moves between the roles of scientist and metaphysician.

There are some useful distinctions between the two roles.

Science is discovery through direct interaction with the material universe. In the wake of these discoveries, generalizations can be induced as metaphysics.

If a thinker induces generalizations a priori, henceforth oscillating therefrom to the particulars of their application, s/he is first a scientific theoretician and thereafter a scientist.

When a thinker induces generalizations from scientific premises, theories and experimental data, s/he is a metaphysician.

In my Apple Dictionary I have an animated graphic most instructive. It starts with a black dot (point) that expands to a line that expands to an area that expands to a cube that expands to a hypercube.

This exemplifies "an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices."

This is my view of the ultimate medium, reality.
— ucarr

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that the possibilities for a human life are immeasurably fecund and the most authentic life is one of continual learning and reinvention? — Tom Storm

You and I live in a reality that has three spatial dimensions expanded + spacetime. Time and motion are a part of everything we do in our lives.

I'm saying our universe, as evidenced by QM and string theory, includes expanded spatial dimensions additional to the four mentioned above. Newly discoverable types of time and motion are available for our enrichment. In saying this, I'm answering your earlier response to something I said (both quoted below).

This leads me to the following difficult conceptualization: all of existence is physical, and yet the metaphysical is integral to this physicality. I proceed forth from this puzzle by claiming metaphysics_physics are coordinate and contemporary with each other. Furthermore, metaphysics_physics are both independently and mutually non-reductive. Lastly, all of the preceding suggests to me our universe is an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices.
— ucarr

If this is the case, what does this contribute to your understanding of the world and models of reality? — Tom Storm

Well, the metaphysical ideas of identity and causality, for instance, are themselves abstracted from experience, and most (if not all) of these abstracted ideas of metaphysics are in application to the "real world" as we best interpret it. — javra

You, like Joshs, acknowledge the person-world interaction (PWI) as the starting point for cognition. IOW (In other words), PWI is the ground of cognition. I'm struggling to see how metaphysics jumps to the top of the logical flow chart WRT (With respect to) translation of PWI into awareness_analysis_understanding.

As to the issue of normalization, I merely intended to evidence that there cannot be concepts in physics without a preestablished foundation of metaphysical concepts. — javra

...one can work with metaphysical concepts abstracted from experience - however tacitly they might be held - without in any way entertaining concepts in physics... — javra

With the above two statements you begin to claim metaphysics is the first category of learning done by humans. The suggestion is that metaphysics is cognitive scaffolding for logical structuring of data from scholarship across the spectrum of academic disciplines.

a toddler will actively learn and apply metaphysical concepts such as those of identity/change and causation - this non-linguistically - without making use of concepts pertaining to physics, be it Newtonian physics or that of relativity. — javra

Also, humans first learn metaphysically from informal empirical experience, such as that of a child learning causation after touching a hot stove.

In my view your examples show categorical learning across the spectrum of academic disciplines occurring simultaneously with generalized logical organization of over-arching, multi-discipline concepts. I'm wondering if you and Joshs are crediting the broad reach of metaphysics that over-arches the spectrum of disciplines and empirical experiences with the additional merit of logical priority to said without warrant.

The crux of our disagreement might be your view: placing metaphysics logically first, conflicting with my view, placing metaphysics_physics logically simultaneous. (Note - In the preceding sentence, "physics" is a special usage gathering the spectrum of academic disciplines and empirical experiences under the rubric "physics.")

Generalization of logical data organization to a multi-disciplinary scope of inclusion does not necessarily grant such expanded scope logical priority to the disciplines included.

On the contrary, exploration within the separate disciplines generates discipline-specific data which is then subsequently generalized to a scope of application perhaps characterizable as metaphysics.

I accept top placement of metaphysics on a flow chart tracking scope of inclusion.

I don’t accept top placement of metaphysics on a flow chart tracking logical priority.

I think you and Joshs, in your conceptualization of metaphysics, are conflating scope of inclusion with logical priority.

When I say that metaphysics is prior to modern physics I just mean that theorization is ‘prior’ to any particular historical content of a theory. — Joshs

Let's focus on the difference between historical priority and categorical priority.

With the former, we have a linear sequence of ordinal positions. As the sequence grows it increases the number of positions prior to latter positions. If this ordinal sequence expands along a temporal axis, then we have an expansion of historical priors. A latter position may or may not inhabit a causal relationship as a derivative of a prior. Thus a prior position and a latter position might be logically equal, with a relationship devoid of the attribute of derivation. Their respective dates of temporal occurrence have no bearing upon their logical equality.

With the latter, we have an analytical sequence of logical positions. As the sequence grows it increases the number of derivatives with prior causes. Each latter position inhabits a causal relationship as a derivative of a prior.

With categorical priority, the temporal axis of dates of occurrence of positions is excluded. This means that a position temporally latter can be logically prior to a position that predates it. Thus a scientist of antiquity who, after observing a stone roll downhill numerous times, declares that space is a neutral expanse inside of which a tug of war rages between a little stone (the one rolling down the hill) and a big stone (earth at the bottom of the hill), makes a statement derivative of Einstein's Relativity. This notwithstanding the scientist of antiquity working twenty centuries before Einstein.

This is so because the ancient theory, having no concept of light speed velocities, comprises a volume of truth content derivative of Relativity, a concept comprising a volume of truth content containing both everyday and light velocities.

My position rejects the categorical priority of metaphysics WRT physics, modern or otherwise.

Metaphysics is not prior to the self-world interaction, but it is prior to ( the condition of possibility for) modern physics. — Joshs

With your statement above, do you reject the categorical priority of metaphysics WRT physics, modern or otherwise?

I ask this because saying "Metaphysics is prior to the condition of possibility for modern physics." is far from saying "Metaphysics is only temporally prior to modern physics."

With the former, you leave in the proviso that "a sequence of necessary metaphysical concepts predates their culmination in modern physics."

You are again addressing the issue in terms of metaphysical worldviews rather than, as I specifically asked for, metaphysical concepts. — javra

Metaphysical concept Vs. Metaphysical worldview > Is the difference that concept is an abstract idea whereas worldview is an abstract idea in application to the real world and thus contextualized empirically?

I believe the main function of metaphysics is taking abstract concepts and contextualizing them empirically. Its job is to show how ideas operate in our everyday lives.

It is the job of science to discover abstract descriptions of the world via experimentation. Einstein does this with Relativity.

It is the job of metaphysics to normalize empirically those descriptions of the world that are abstract, thus making them pictures of the everyday world. Heidegger does this with ontology.

Asking the same question I previously asked in greater detail: How can one justify physicality in manners that make no use of identity or change, space or time, causation, and necessity or possibility? All these being subjects of metaphysics and most of these not being topics of investigation in physics. — javra

If I make one substitution to your above statement to the following effect "How can one contextualize physicality in manners that... and necessity or possibility?" then I get a statement that leads directly into> metaphysics normalizes empirically those descriptions of the world that are abstract i.e. "identity or change, space or time, causation, and necessity or possibility."

Normalize means herein to place into an operational environment. For an example consider that Spacetime, as an abstract concept, actually is grounded in a string of neural networks communicating via modulated electric currents. From this cerebral ground, the metaphysician talks about how it is that a ball rolls downhill and comes to rest there. She then goes on to talk about how humans, living within a gravitational universe, must strive, via sweat and brow, to conform to a moral imperative that mandates a vigorous work ethic that, at bottom, is counterforce sustained against a world of resistance. The scientist discovers the math narrative of spacetime. The metaphysician narrates the moral compass described by the the curve of spacetime in humans' everyday world.

Indeed, metaphysics is morally grounded.

As far as how to justify physicality (in a way that makes use of identity or change, space or time, causation, and necessity or possibility), abstractions such as those listed here become indirect objects "affected" by justification of a string of neural networks communicating via modulated electric currents i.e. by justification of abstract concepts within one's head.

When the metaphysician tells me I must work hard and strive to achieve worthy goals, she's dialoguing with her concept of spacetime, an abstract concept neurally grounded within her head. That is what she justifies. She makes no direct justification of a ball rolling downhill.

I didn’t mean to leave the impression that I thought a metaphysical framework is generated ‘in the head’ before and outside of exposure to an outside world. — Joshs

...subject and object, are not two separate realms, they are only poles of an indissociable interaction. — Joshs

Through this interactive experiencing we construct and evolve schemes of understanding and predicting ( metaphysics) — Joshs

Using the physical object as the starting point for our understanding of the self-world interaction is getting it backwards, — Joshs

In your first three statements quoted above, you acknowledge the physics_metaphysics relationship as being a kind of mobius strip of "indissociable interaction."

In your fourth statement quoted above, you jump to a linear-time conceptualization of the physics_metaphysics relationship. You ascribe to me an erroneous sequencing that makes physics prior to metaphysics (and thus falsely causal) while implying with "backwards" that the correct sequencing makes metaphysics prior to physics (and thus correctly causal).

...because we are starting with a sophisticated metaphysical scheme without recognizing that modern concepts of the physical object are the products of a long constitutive development , the evolution from one metaphysical scheme to the next( scientific paradigms) that involves the communication among many subjective perspectives within an intersubjective scientific community. — Joshs

In your fifth statement quoted above, you proceed to an argument that buttresses metaphysics as the cause of physics by stating that "modern concepts of the physical object are the products of a long constitutive [cerebral] development..."

Your statements, considered as evidence, suggest deep internal conflict within your mind. You know cerebration is indissociable from experience, and yet, when push comes to shove, according to your heart's desire, you must assert that metaphysics is both temporally and logically antecedent to physics.

You go all the way to implying humans cannot perceive physical objects but through the lens of humanity's collective conceptualization (over time) of physical objects.

We're wrestling with a gnarly interweave. This interweave is a complex nexus of bi-conditional syntheses_analyses. Both poles are foundational to sentient life. Their dance together, a swirling dervish, creates a dynamism of yin-yang conflict, the soul of great debates.

In ascribing to me a false linearity with physics in the front position, you mis-read me. I've been saying for some time now, "physics_metaphysics are coordinates and contemporaries."

What's hard to do is talk about physics_metaphysics in a way that removes temporal and logical sequencing from their inter-relationship. This difficulty here in the west is partly do to the influence of our classical culture, scientific and religious, that tends to elevate the value of cognition (especially abstractions) above the value of the physical. Removing TLS (Temporal Logical Sequencing) places the poles onto level ground qualitatively, and that's hard to do because it bucks twenty centuries of bias.

...to me our universe is an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices.
— ucarr

If this is the case, what does this contribute to your understanding of the world and models of reality? — Tom Storm

ma·trix | ˈmātriks |
noun (plural matrices | ˈmātrəˌsēz | or matrixes)
1 an environment or material in which something develops; a surrounding medium or structure: free choices become the matrix of human life.

In my Apple Dictionary I have an animated graphic most instructive. It starts with a black dot (point) that expands to a line that expands to an area that expands to a cube that expands to a hypercube.

This exemplifies "an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices."

This is my view of the ultimate medium, reality.

Making things interesting is the fact the world is full of Hemingway knockoffs who keep telling me most ideas beyond beer, dames, sports and money are twaddle spewed by idlers who need to get real jobs. You can however get exemption from assignment to the woo woo chorus by scoring a career that pays living wages for commercially viable twaddle (academics/entertainment).

Your argument is predicated upon an inter-relationship between external stimuli/internal processing. If newborns could survive in sensory deprivation chambers (they can't) no suppositions (verifiable in behavior), pre or post would evolve internally*. I presently see no way to uncouple (or semi-uncouple) metaphysics from physics.

*Let's say some infantile suppositions do evolve within. I argue the source of such suppositions is still external i.e. the intra-mural particulars of the deprivation chamber communicated to the infants senses.

If

"Some metaphysics is integral to physics. This is metaphysics. Therefore this is integral to physics". — Banno

gets modified to

"Some metaphysics is integral to physics. This is metaphysics $\leftrightarrow$physics. Therefore, metaphysics = physics for $\sum_{i=mp}^{i=p}$". — ucarr

You have a statement that correctly interprets my verbal claim, however

A$\leftrightarrow$[AAA…] ∦ ∫$\leftrightarrow$$\sum_{i=mp}^{i=p}$

so your refutation fails because of irrelevance.

I assert the physicality of language
— ucarr
Type/token. — Banno

Language, although iconic, is not abstract. Likewise thought.