No, it's not faith by my definition. It's a properly basic belief*. It's basic, because it's innate- not derived, and not taught. It's properly basic if the world that produced us would tend to produce this belief, which is the case if we are the product of evolutionary forces. It is rational to maintain belief that has not been epistemologically defeated. The bare possibility that the belief is false does not defeat the belief. — Relativist

Sorry, if my word-choice seemed to put you in an irrational category. Since you used the term "belief", I simply substituted another term, "faith"*1, with the same basic meaning, to give you pause to see a different perspective. Trust in your own senses is intuitive and pragmatic. But philosophy is about the mental models of reality that we artificially construct from incoming sensory data. Our personal worldviews (belief systems) are resistant to "defeat" by epistemological arguments.

I wasn't accusing you of promoting a religious Faith. I too, believe that my physical senses give me reliable information about the material world. But, as an amateur philosopher, I am also interested in the immaterial aspects of reality*2 : Ideas, Feelings, Reason, Self Concept, Mathematical Truths, etc. I also "believe" that humans are the "product of evolutionary forces". But we may differ on the exact nature of those forces. For example, based on cutting-edge science, I equate physical Energy with mental Information. If that notion intrigues or appalls you, I can provide scientific reasons for accepting that equation as a philosophically useful concept (in a separate thread, of course). :smile:


*1. While often used interchangeably, belief and faith have distinct meanings. Belief is an acceptance that something is true, often based on evidence or reasoning. Faith, on the other hand, is a deeper, often more active trust and reliance, often in the face of uncertainty or lack of proof. Essentially, belief can be a mental acceptance, while faith involves action and commitment based on that belief.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=belief+vs+faith

*2. Immaterial aspects of reality refer to things that exist but are not made of physical matter. Examples include thoughts, emotions, concepts like justice or beauty, and even mathematical truths. These aspects are not constrained by physical laws and can be intangible and non-physical.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immaterial+aspects+of+reality+examples

Watchword? Not sure what you mean by that. — Relativist

Compared to the Determinism of Newtonian physics, the Stochastic (random ; probabilistic ; indeterminate) nature of sub-atomic physics has made Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle a note of caution about making factual assertions of Reality and our interpretations of the world. :nerd:

Quantum philosophical uncertainty refers to the philosophical interpretations and implications of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, which states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot be known with perfect accuracy simultaneously. This principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg, has sparked debate about the nature of reality, determinism, and free will.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+philosophical+uncertainty

I take it as a premise that the external world exists and that we have a functionally accurate perception of it (I justify this as being a a properly basic belief: it's innate, and plausibly a consequence of the evolutionary processes that produced us.This is my epistemic foundation. — Relativist

So, you are aware that your "premise" is a Faith instead of a Fact? Most people, including Scientists, intuitively take for granted that their senses render an accurate model of the external world. But ask them to explain how that material reality-to-mind-model process works, and the story gets murky. Yet, philosophers tend to over-think it, and ask how we could verify (justify) that commonsense Belief as a Positive Fact*1.

From 17th century to 20th century, your Real World certainty (faith) would have been seemed justifiable. But since Quantum Physics undermined the sub-atomic foundation of Newton's Physics, Uncertainty has become the watch-word for scientists. Please notice that this response makes no reference to gods, or scriptures, or feelings . . . . just to the modern scientific worldview. :smile:


*1. The central problem in the epistemology of perception is that of explaining how perception could give us knowledge or justified belief about an external world, about things outside of ourselves. This problem has traditionally been viewed in terms of a skeptical argument that purports to show that such knowledge and justification are impossible.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/

*2. Quantum epistemology explores the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, particularly concerning knowledge, reality, and the limits of what can be known. It grapples with the strange and counterintuitive aspects of quantum theory, like superposition and entanglement, and their impact on our understanding of the physical world and how we can know it
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+epistemology

*3. The shift from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics brought notable differences in understanding the universe :
# Determinism versus Indeterminism : Newtonian physics proposed a deterministic universe where future behavior could be predicted with certainty if initial conditions were known. Quantum mechanics introduced indeterminism, suggesting that not all outcomes can be predicted with certainty, with particles existing in states of probability.
# Uncertainty Principle : Unlike classical mechanics, where properties like position and momentum could be measured simultaneously with high precision, the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics sets a fundamental limit on how precisely certain pairs of properties can be simultaneously known. Increasing the precision of measuring one property reduces the precision of measuring its paired property.
# Nature of Reality : Classical physics assumed an objective reality independent of observation, whereas quantum mechanics suggests that observation and measurement can influence the properties of a system. Some interpretations propose that properties may not exist until measured.
# The Uncertainty Principle has philosophical implications, challenging the notion of absolute knowledge and predictability and prompting discussions about reality and causality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+newton+certainty+quantum+uncertainty

This post was started prior to the post above, but interrupted.

I chose my words carefully, and am highlighting the fact that the "problem of consciousness" only entails the negative fact: consciousness is not entirely physical. I have repeatedly pointed out that that this negative fact explains nothing. It opens up possibilities, but possibility is cheap. — Relativist

Until you brought it up, I was not familiar with the term "Negative Fact"*1. But the definition below sounds absurd to me. And I don't know anybody who bases a philosophical conclusion on nothing but the Absence*2 of that thing. Maybe their Immaterial Presence explanation*3 just doesn't make sense to your Matter-based Bias. Ideas & Concepts may be absent from Material Reality, but for humans, they are present in Mental Ideality. So, the negative term is useful only for denigrating the very talent that distinguishes humans from animals : reasoning from possibility to probability. That's our way of predicting the future.

To say that "possibility is cheap" disparages the basic assumption of this forum, and of Philosophy in general : that possibility is fertile ground for rational exploration. By the way : you may be familiar only with traditional Dualistic*4 explanations for Consciousness. But my thesis is Monistic. :smile:


*1. In logic and philosophy, the concept of a "negative fact" refers to the possibility of a fact existing due to the absence of something.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=negative+fact+possibility

*2. What Is The Power of Absence?
Terrence Deacon's 2011 book, goes into great detail to create a plausible hypothesis for solving the mystery of how living organisms suddenly emerged on Earth, after billions of years of spatial expansion & material aggregation had managed to build only simple inorganic chemical systems that strictly obeyed the zero-sum 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

*3. Some people argue that consciousness is not entirely physical, or that it is not simply reducible to physical processes in the brain. This perspective is often associated with philosophical positions like Dualism, which proposes that the mind and body are separate entities, or with specific arguments like the Knowledge Argument, which suggests that knowing all the physical facts about consciousness doesn't fully capture the subjective experience of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+negative+fact%3A+consciousness+is+not+entirely+physical.

*4. Dualism; Duality :
Descartes’ Dualism argued that the real world was composed of two “substances” : physical spatial Body and metaphysical non-spatial Soul. But modern Science is based on Materialistic Monism. Now Quantum science has theorized that the foundation of reality is non-spatial non-local fields of potential energy, that seem more like Soul than Body. So the Enformationism worldview is both monistic and dualistic. The single “substance” of our world is metaphysical EnFormAction, which is equivalent to all-pervading fields of energy. But all things we know with our physical senses are bodies, that are atomistic in the sense that they can be added & divided.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

The negative fact that is the topic is: physicalism does not fully account for the nature of consciousness. — Relativist

OK. But do you have a Positive Fact that "_____ does fully account for the nature of consciousness". A Materialist worldview might fill-in the blank with something like "Atomic Theory", or Aristotle's "hyle", instead of "morph", as Positive Facts. Yet, in what sense are these theories or views Factual? Are they proven or verified, or are the only open-ended Possibilities?

Do you consider yourself to be a Physicalist*1 or Monistic Materialist, with no immaterial subjective thoughts? If so, then you may view Chalmers' "hard problem"*2 as "superfluous and unparsimonious". What kind of matter are those beliefs, views, attitudes made of? Do you have a theory, or mechanism, to account for how Matter became Conscious, after 14B years of random accidents? :smile:


*1. Physicalism, the view that everything is fundamentally physical, struggles to fully explain consciousness because it struggles to account for the subjective, qualitative experience of consciousness, often referred to as qualia or phenomenal consciousness. While physicalism can describe the physical structures and processes of the brain, it doesn't fully explain how these give rise to the subjective feeling of what it's like to see, hear, or feel pain.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+physicalism+does+not+fully+account+for+the+nature+of+consciousness.

*2. The "hard problem of consciousness" refers to the challenge of explaining how subjective, qualitative experiences ("what it's like" to have a feeling) arise from physical processes in the brain. It contrasts with "easy problems" of consciousness, which are about explaining cognitive functions and behaviors like attention, memory, and language processing. Essentially, the hard problem asks why and how physical processes give rise to subjective, qualitative experiences like feeling pain or seeing the color red.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hard+problem
Note --- I am aware that I experience the world from a personal perspective. But I can only infer, rationally, that you have a similar awareness of the non-self world. And It's easy to assert that, given eons of time, random roiling of atoms could possibly develop feelings & sensations. But the hard part, the science part, is to describe "how" that happened. And the philosophy part is to explain "why" consciousness might emerge from a evolutionary process that coasted along for 99% of Time with no signs of Consciousness until the last .001%.

If Consciousness was entirely physical*1, there would be no need for Philosophy — Gnomon
That would only be true if we had perfect and complete knowledge of how to reduce everything to fundamental physics, and the capacity to compute human behavior on this basis. — Relativist

So, you agree that incomplete empirical Physics*1 leaves something to be desired, that theoretical Philosophy can explore : perhaps a Theory of Everything? Theories are not about Actualities, but about Possibilities. Yes? :smile:

*1. Yes, physics is generally considered incomplete. Current theories, like the Standard Model, have limitations and don't fully explain phenomena like gravity at the quantum level, dark matter, and dark energy. Furthermore, even with a complete theory of everything, complexity in emergent systems like the human brain would still pose significant challenges
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+physics+incomplete

Modern physicalism has no problen dealing with the things you refer to as "not entirely physical". For example, energy is a property that things have. Properties are not objects, per say, but they are aspects of the way physical things are. — Relativist

Yes. But Properties are known by inference, not by observation. And Qualities cannot be dissected into fundamental atoms. Science is based on sensory observation, followed by philosophical Deduction, Induction & Abduction. When scientists study immaterial "aspects" of nature, they are doing philosophy. Yes? :smile:

The negative fact I referred to is "not (entirely) physical." I simply disagree with jumping to any conclusion based solely on this negative fact. Negative facts only entail possibilities - a wealth of them. If you wish to create some hypothetical framework, that's your business, but I won't find it compelling without some justification for giving it some credibility. — Relativist

Bertrand Russell "argued that negative facts are necessary to explain why true negative propositions are true"*2. But you seem to be wary of exploring unverified "possibilities" and hypotheses. Is that because you can't put a statistical Probability under a microscope, to study its structure? Are you fearful of Uncertainty? Were Einstein's ground-breaking theoretical discoveries based on hard facts, or on anomalies that puzzled expert scientists? Was the bending of light by gravity a known fact, or a mere hypothetical possibility? Do you prefer observational Science to theoretical Philosophy, because of the superiority of verified Fact over possible Explanation?

Do you assume, just because my worldview is different from yours, that I am "just making sh*t up". Obviously, you haven't looked at the scientific "justification" --- primarily Quantum Physics & Information Theory --- that I present "for giving it some credibility". I don't quote scripture to account for my unorthodox worldview. I almost exclusively quote credible credentialed scientists. And I give links, so you can satisfy yourself that they should know what they are talking about.

So in my thesis, I "jumped to a conclusion" based, not on "negative facts", but on scientific anomalies, that open the door for philosophical explanation. And my conclusions are always tentative, subject to new evidence. That's why, as an amateur, I post on this forum, dedicated to criticism of speculations & conjectures. :cool:

*2. The existence and nature of negative facts have been debated in philosophy. Some philosophers, like Russell, have argued that negative facts are necessary to explain why true negative propositions are true.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=negative+fact

PS___ You didn't say which "negative fact" I was using as a quicksand ground from which to "jump to a {unwarranted??} conclusion". So, my comments here are generalized. If you want a more warranted reply, you need to specify the unverified Possibility that I leaped from to a Conclusion you don't agree with. In the OP, the conclusion was "God" as the "ultimate reality", and the "grounds" were philosophical arguments, not scientific possibilities.

If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter? — Skalidris

I'm just throwing this out there : maybe the lack of "creativity" is not just in Philosophy, but also in Physics, and in Politics. Are we seeing a general conservative turtle-shell retraction from taking risks. Instead of forging ahead into the unknown territory, we point fingers/guns at the opposition. Is this hyper-critical stand-off & stalemate how revolutions & civil wars begin? If so, maybe this is just the stagnant storm before the creative calm. :cool:

Dissection Over Discourse :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16022/two-ways-to-philosophise/p1

Theoretical Physics Has Completely Stagnated Since the 1990s?

I partially agree. I don't think 'form' traditionally refers to some kind of transcendental idealistic 'idea' of a think attributed to it by cognition: it's an integrated actualizing principle of the thing, which is embedded into the thing by a mind. — Bob Ross

I guess that conditional agreement depends on which traditions you refer to. Plato was very clear that he considered his Ideal & Universal Forms (e.g. circularity) to be perfect conceptual principles, transcending imperfect material reality*1. But Aristotle was more like a modern scientist in that he preferred to deal with immanent particular Reality.

Ari does philosophize (theorize) in his distinction between Form (morph) and Matter (hyle). Yet, he probably thought of the formal properties of a particular thing as attributions, metaphorically "embedded into the thing" by a mortal mind*2. Plato might wonder though, if those general classifications (circularity vs squarity) are out there in Nature, or imposed on instances by a form-seeking mind.

Over millennia, the term "Atom" referred to tiny fundamental particles of tangible stuff : bits of Prime Matter? But now, the foundational element of physics is defined as an intangible non-local mathematical universal Field (similar to gravity), with localized measurable sub-fields & forces (e.g. electromagnetism). Like Gravity, these fields are invisible & intangible. So like Energy, we infer that they exist only by observing their formal & causal effects on matter. Do we perceive material objects, or do we observe meaningful patterns (Forms), and infer tangible Matter?

For my own purposes, I would reserve the term "Form" for a transcendent universal sense, and use "Prime Matter" in an immanent specific sense : of how humans categorize the various Kinds (elements) of material objects. Both are useful concepts, but PM more for scientific work, and Form for philosophical explorations. :smile:


*1. In Plato's philosophy, the Theory of Forms posits that the physical world is a mere shadow of a higher realm of perfect, eternal, and unchanging Forms or Ideas. While Plato doesn't explicitly equate God with the Forms, his concept of the Form of the Good is often seen as the ultimate source of reality and the origin of all other Forms, bearing strong resemblance to a divine principle. Some interpretations even place the Forms within the mind of God, suggesting a divine intellect that shapes and understands the universe through these perfect archetypes
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+mind+of+god

*2. Form vs Matter :
There is in any case already a considerable controversy at this basic level about what Aristotle means by matter and form: what precisely they are, how they are related to one another, how Aristotle intends to marshal arguments in support of them, and how best to deal with reasonable objections to their metaphysical consequences.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/

E.g., circularity is not a part of a circle; but the atoms that compose the given circle are; and those atoms are comprised of electrons, neutrons, and protons; ... — Bob Ross

Exactly! As a part of speech, in our materialistic language, "circularity" is a noun, a thing, an object. Yet Properties (Qualia) are not actually material things, but ideas about things that are attributed to the matter by a sentient observer. Back to the hylomorph example : the hyle is a piece of wood made of non-wood atoms. Together, the system (splintery wood), and its primary components (cellulose molecules), combine with subordinate particles (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms) to appear to us humans as malleable objects that can be shaped into lumber, or paper, or idols.

In the OP, you posited that "If I am right, then it seems like we can get rid of 'matter' (in Aristotle's sense) and retain form (viz., actuality)." But the mindless philosophy of Materialism would deny that possibility. Because, objectively Reality is the objects of perception, that we know via physical senses. Yet, Ideality is the subjects of conception, that we can't point to out there, but only imagine in the mind. Hence, Form*1 is immaterial, not real, and considered unimportant, and perhaps dispensable.

So, I think you have pointed-out the crux of much argument on this forum. Some of us think, impersonally, that only the useful Hyle is worthy of consideration. While others view reality from a personal human perspective, in which the Form (properties, qualia) is all we know about the thing. :smile:


*1. In philosophical contexts, "form" often refers to the essential nature or defining characteristics of a thing, shaping its identity and properties. It's distinct from the physical matter that makes up an object, and understanding a thing's form is crucial for understanding its behavior and properties
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+form+is+the+properties+of+a+thing

I chose my words carefully, and am highlighting the fact that the "problem of consciousness" only entails the negative fact: consciousness is not entirely physical. I have repeatedly pointed out that that this negative fact explains nothing. It opens up possibilities, but possibility is cheap. — Relativist

If Consciousness was entirely physical*1, there would be no need for Philosophy*2. But even scientific Physics is not entirely physical*3, in the sense of tangible, material, or concrete. Newtonian physics was presumed to be about "things" perceived through the senses. Until he was forced by mathematical reasoning to posit a strange invisible force that acts at a distance*4, and can only be detected by it's effects on matter. Ironically, his belief in the biblical God should have prepared him to accept such magical powers.

Centuries later, Einstein re-defined Newton's mathematical Gravity as the abstract geometry of space-time. And Quantum Physics extended the abstraction of the material world with its notions of statistical existence (probabilistic particles), and with mathematical definitions of abstract Fields*3 underlying the material world. Yet, such abstract ideas*5 have eroded our former confidence (uncertainty principle) in the substantial materiality of the natural world.

As I learned about the emerging abstraction of Physics, I began to see that the Causal Forces that act in the material world are more Mental than Material. For example, we now define Energy, not as a material object or substance, but as the Potential, or Ability, or Capacity to cause material change. We measure Energy, not by what it is, but by what it does : its effects, not its substance. I could go on, but these examples should suffice to illustrate that modern Science has encountered aspects of reality that are "not entirely physical", and can only be analyzed mathematically (mentally ; rationally ; theoretically ; philosophically).

Therefore, the need to treat Consciousness, not as a "negative fact", but as more like an invisible Force, or causal Energy, or space-time Field, should come as no surprise. I won't go further in this post. But my thesis & blog treat Consciousness and Life as philosophical subjects, not scientific objects of study. :nerd:


*1. Physical :
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
___ Oxford Dictionary
Meta-Physical : conceived via mental reasoning instead of the physical senses.

*2. The idea that consciousness is not entirely physical, often called non-physicalism or dualism, is a viewpoint that suggests consciousness is separate from or irreducible to physical matter and processes. This perspective is supported by arguments such as the "explanatory gap" (the difficulty in explaining subjective experience from physical descriptions) and the qualia argument (the unique, subjective nature of conscious experience)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+is+not+entirely+physical

*3. In quantum field theory, the quantum field is considered fundamental and not composed of anything physical ; rather, it's the foundation upon which particles and forces emerge. It's often described as an immaterial realm of energy, light, and information, existing as frequency, and giving rise to what we perceive as matter
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+immaterial

*4. Newton's theory of gravity describes a force that acts at a distance, meaning objects exert a gravitational pull on each other without needing to be in contact. This concept, where gravity acts instantaneously across vast distances, troubled Newton himself, as he considered it a philosophical "absurdity". Despite his reservations, his mathematical formulation of gravity accurately predicted planetary motion and other phenomena, leading him to accept it as a working model.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=newton+gravity+action+at+a+distance

*5. What does it mean to be abstract? :
having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/abstract

Yes, but then there isn’t some other substance which can receive potentiality. ‘Matter’ is not a substrate which receives form. The ‘material’ out of which something is created is the already existed stuff (objects) which can be made into a whole (by way of it receiving the form of the whole); so each object is both comprised of form and matter only insofar as its parts are the matter and its form is the actualizing principle of the structure that makes those parts its parts. There is no substrate of ‘matter’. — Bob Ross

Yes. The Substrate (hyle ; wood ; matter) already exists. But the Form (morph) is what converts wood into art. In the image below, notice the hands & mind that impart design (actualizing principle) to the malleable clay. Sans Mind, clay is just mud. :smile:

No. I acknowledge everything you said about the impact of mind on the world, but it's independent of the (meta)physical nature of mind. The world we interact with (through human action and interaction) is best understood through things like social sciences, and not through quantum field theory. This is true even if reductive physicalism is 100% correct. The possibility of mind having some immaterial aspects also doesn't seem to have any bearing - it's still just a different sort of reduction. — Relativist

Quantum Field Theory is just one of the mind-expanding technologies that opens doors for novel philosophical & scientific exploration. Of course, an open door could invite dangerous strangers into your worldview. That's why a skeptical screen helps to filter-out the fake & false, while admitting new possibilities.

Some posters on this forum feel safer with the certainty of 17th century physics, and shy away from 20th century quantum physics*1. Both are "frameworks" for conceiving the real world. Newton's world was solid & stable & factual, safely outside the human mind : a closed door. But the Quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable & subject to interpretation. Even spookier is that quantum observations are somewhat dependent on the observer : opening a door of perception*2 into the personal domain of the human mind.

If you define "Mind" as "Brain", you can ignore any uncanny immaterial or metaphysical*4 implications. But, if you define "Mind"*3 as awareness & intellect & experience (feeling), you will be hard-pressed to find any "material aspects" that you can put your finger on. The choice is yours : open door & risk (exploration), or closed door & security (stay at home). :smile:


*1. Newtonian physics and quantum physics are two different frameworks for describing the universe, with Newtonian physics focusing on the motion of macroscopic objects and quantum physics delving into the behavior of matter at the atomic and subatomic level. Newtonian physics is deterministic, meaning that given the initial conditions of a system, its future state can be precisely predicted. Quantum physics, on the other hand, is probabilistic, meaning it can only predict the likelihood of different outcomes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+vs+newtonian+physics

*2. The famous quote, "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite," comes from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. It was later used as the epigraph for Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception, which details his experiences with the drug mescaline.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=doors+of+perception+quote
Note --- The sub-atomic world described by quantum physicists seems more like a psychedelic drug trip than the mundane reality of Newtonian physics. How can we tell what's real, and what's ideal? Remember, all we know about Reality is our images & experiences in the mind. Can we trust our own perceptions?

*3. Define Mind :
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
___Oxford dictionary

*4. Notes on Meta-Physics :
# Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns) ; Forces are Causes (motivators)
# Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).
# Selves are meta-physical agents, in the sense that they are more than a collection of physical parts (integrated whole system). They are not Spiritual, in the sense of ghosts without bodies. At death, a Self dissipates even as the parts remain.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

PS___ I've noticed in several of the posts on this thread, negative assessments of Intuition & Imagination : the very talents that give humans a competitive edge over animals, who are able to see only what is within range of their senses. Eagles can see farther than men ; Dogs can follow scents that are insensible to their masters. But it's the ability to see what's not there, and to predict the future, that make men the masters over less endowed animals.

Of course, Intuition & Imagination & Wishful Thinking can lead us astray. But we do it anyway. Because the intellectual payoff outweighs the risks. And that ability to see over the horizon is what gives Scientists & Philosophers a leg-up on those who (metaphorically) stay safely at home, where food & shelter are guaranteed. And there's no need for discernment, curiosity, or ambition. ;)

However we are limited to what we can know in our world. This can also be extrapolated to some universal truths. But we can’t know the extent to which this knowledge applies to realities beyond our world. It could be a pale, or partial, representation of the reality beyond. As such we can do no more than speculate on what there is. — Punshhh

Yes. That's what exploring philosophers do : use our limited senses to learn what is within our reach, and then reach-out to "speculate" on what might exist outside our little valley, on the other side of the mountain. In other words : to expand our perspective. Universal Truths are not observations, but interpretations. :smile:

Is the Matrix real? — Nemo2124

No. But the Matrix movie serves as a metaphor for the Information Age*1, in which computers do a lot of our thinking for us. A few centuries ago, humans began to off-load some of their memory to mechanical language processors (printing press). Now we are off-loading & up-loading some of our thinking tasks to large-language models (AI).

Both of those technical advances increased the scope & range of our thinking and communicating. But, as far as I can tell, they have changed Reality only in our perception and conception of what's real : "is it real, or is it AI?" A generation ago, audio recording technology resulted in the memorable advertising phrase : "is it real, or is it Memorex?"

The more technical-things expand our reach, the more human Reality stays the same : jello-like brain, in a temporary flesh & blood body. It's our Ideality (worldview) that changes in adaptation to the tech. Did taming Fire change reality, or our power-relation to Reality? :smile:


*1. The Information Age, also known as the Digital Age or Computer Age, is a period characterized by the rapid development and widespread use of information technology, particularly computers and the internet. It represents a shift from traditional industries to an economy centered on information and its manipulation. This era, which began in the mid-20th century, has dramatically changed how people access, share, and utilize information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+age

The question I'm trying to sort out is: what impact does this alleged immateriality of mind have on my overall world view? It doesn't seem to undermine anything, except for the simple (possible) fact that there exists something immaterial. — Relativist

I have used a practical example of Mind Over Matter before : the Panama Canal*1 was a dream of shippers for nearly three centuries before it had any physical "impact" on shipping. Early Spanish maps showed a bird's eye view of how narrow the isthmus is. And the conceptual implications for a shortcut to transport goods & gold --- two days of calm water vs two months around the hazardous Cape Horn --- were obvious, but immaterial, and "deemed impossible".

In practice, it took several failed attempts, and several decades of dreaming, and many human deaths to make that "impossible dream" a Reality. Nature might have eroded the isthmus over millennia, or it might not. But human Culture (and dynamite) did the job, by literally "undermining" Nature, and physically moving mountains. Can you agree that this is an example of the causal power of Mind in the Material world?

Moreover, modern human Culture --- with all its faults & failures --- is an ongoing example of mind-power motivating human potential. In material brains, processing immaterial (functional) minds, collective culture currently dreams of humans flying, like wingless birds with tails on fire, to the Moon and Mars. Are these shiny ships propelled by fire or by fantasy, or both? Do these pragmatic examples of Causal Conceptual Power (practical magic?) have any "impact" on your overall worldview? :smile:


*1. The initial concept for the Panama Canal arose from the desire to create a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, eliminating the long and perilous voyage around South America. This idea, sparked by Vasco Núñez de Balboa's discovery of the Isthmus of Panama, led to early Spanish surveys in the 16th century, but the project was deemed impossible due to the terrain and engineering limitations. Later, the French attempted a sea-level canal in the late 19th century, but faced immense challenges with disease and landslides, ultimately leading to their failure. The American-led effort, which ultimately succeeded, involved a lock-based system to navigate the elevation changes across the isthmus.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=panama+canal+original+concept

But, IMHO, Calleman's unorthodox method came much closer to answering the "why?" questions. Any questions? :smile:
Questions of why and purpose are inaccessible to us because they involve the purposes of who, or what brought the world into being. It might only be possible to understand, or map those purposes from the perspective of that agency (this also applies if the agency is unconscious). We are mere specs of dust in comparison. — Punshhh

Please note that I didn't say he definitively & finally answered the "why?" question of a purpose to the universe. "Questions of why and purpose" are indeed "inaccessible" to empirical science. But this is a theoretical philosophy forum, where such inquiries into Being & Consciousness should be admissible : yes/no?

In a local personal context : have you ever observed the behavior of a person, and asked "why?". Of course, we cannot objectively know another subjective mind, but we can reasonable infer a motive. If so, you were doing philosophy. And you might be able to confirm your suspicion of purpose by asking the oddly behaving "agency". Obviously, we can't interrogate the Causal Agent of our own existence. But we can introspect our inner awareness, and imagine "what it would be like" to have the power & potential to create a world from scratch.

Apparently, your observation of our Universe gives you the impression of blind random purposeless groping in the dark. But Charles Darwin had a grander "view of life"*1, implying that Natural evolution, like Artificial selection of plants & animals, was motivated by a future goal or purpose. And his theory postulated two principle mechanisms : random Mutation & non-random Selection. You have good company in viewing the world as bleak & meaningless : along with Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard, and Russian Nihilists. Ironically, the first four made concessions to personal meaning.

However, my impression of our Cosmos --- based in part on Modern Cosmology, Quantum Physics, and Information Theory --- is of a complex self-assembling system, that is motivated by a world-creating impulse (BB) of Cause & Laws. From such a simple yet powerful beginning, awesome complexity & beauty have evolved --- despite unfit mutations subject to de-selection. And that observation of gradual improvement implies, to more sanguine thinkers, some kind of long range Purpose, implemented in an ongoing Process, not in a six day Genesis fait accompli. I could post a list of my "company" of secular thinkers who reached a more positive & progressive understanding. But for brevity, I'll only mention the one I'm most familiar with : A.N. Whitehead*2.

Doesn't the gradual evolution of Life & Consciousness from an instantaneous explosion of space-time --- from whatever came before --- make you curious about the Why of your own life & mind in a material world? :smile:


*1. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed [by the Creator*] into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
* Darwin added the phrase "by the Creator" from the 1860 second edition onwards, so that the ultimate sentence begins . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

*2. Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality :
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but my question is a bit different. My question, "why take a hypothetical possibility seriously?" was intended to ascertain how you justify believing it as more than a mere possibility. In particular: do you actually believe this to be the case? If so, there must be some justification for the belief. Even if you don't actually believe it, you do seem to give it a level of credibility sufficiently high that you'd bring it up - so you must see something that makes it stand out from the rest. — Relativist

Thanks for the thoughtful re-question.
Due to the multiple lines of evidence from science & philosophy, I do think Causation did not originate in the Big Bang, but was expressed in the bang. No, I don't actually "believe" in this pre-bang Potential, in the sense of religious Faith. But I do think it's highly Probable. Which is the best we can say about events from 14b years ago.

If you are really interested in the lines of evidence, they are described in my 2010 thesis*1 and subsequent blog*2, when I was just beginning to take Philosophy seriously. The key indicators are found in Quantum physics and Information theory. But more recently I've read two books that attempt to discover how & why we humans emerged from an explosion in emptiness, then evolved to our current position at the top of the food chain. If that line of thought is of no interest, I can leave it at that.

But, if you are not afraid to ask "why?" questions that might philosophically transcend Reality, here's two recent samples of such forays into the unknown. Oxford biologist Tim Coulson wrote The Science of Why We Exist (2024) : a history of the universe from the Big Bang to Consciousness. He covered a lot of "how?" mechanics leading up to Life & Consciousness, but he did not actually address the "why?" (purpose) of the title.

On the other hand, Stockholm University biologist Carl John Callemann, phd, wrote The New Theory of Origins (2022) : Explaining Consciousness, the Big Bang, fine-tuning, dark matter, the evolution of Life and human history. In addition to the mechanical material stuff, he did directly address the philosophical "why?" of the origin of Life & Consciousness, by peering into the darkness beyond the BB. The ultimate Purpose remains murky, but it was a good try.

The Coulson book would be amenable to 180proof, in that it remained within the methodology of modern science, and within the bounds of material reality. But the Calleman book was more broadly philosophical, and took some liberties with orthodox science, and ancient myths --- what 180poo-poo would call "woo-woo". But, IMHO, Calleman's unorthodox method came much closer to answering the "why?" questions. Any questions? :smile:


*1. Enformationism : It's not something to believe, but something to think
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*2. The Enformation Hypothesis
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

the theoretical pre-big-bang First Cause that you would call "supernatural", is in my own speculative worldview, analogous to the Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind that we experience in the Real world. — Gnomon
Your speculation seems a mere hypothetical possibility. Why take it seriously?
If it is true, how does it impact you? — Relativist

Why take a hypothetical possibility (HP) seriously? Hmmm. There is a hypothetical possibility that US & Iran will soon be engaged in a nuclear war, and Armageddon is immanent. Personally, I don't worry about possibilities that I can't control. But some people get paid to take such prospects seriously, and others do it like touching a sore place.

However, your question sounds like it's coming from a pragmatic scientific perspective. In which case HP is nothing to waste time & effort on. Unless you are Elon Musk, who spends billions of bucks in order to make the hypothetical possibility of earthlings living on Mars an actuality. Is that HP practical or a motivating fantasy?

In any case, impractical philosophers have been taking preternatural possibilities seriously for centuries. But why? What is the payoff? Science is about manipulating the real physical world for animal values of : food, safety, sex, etc. But Philosophy is focused on the immaterial values at the top of the possibility pyramid. {image below} Philosophy is primarily directed inwardly toward cultivation of the human mind. Your pet dog may be dreaming of chasing a hypothetical rabbit, but you may have higher aspirations.

How does a holistic worldview --- including Nature & Culture & all Possibilities --- "impact" me, personally? It doesn't promise personal salvation or superpowers, if that's what you mean. Instead, it allows me to metaphorically "become one with the world". Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, said about Curiosity that "all men by nature desire to know". But only a few adventurous men are motivated to go beyond the known world, into the scary unexplored country beyond the bounds (bourn) of the familiar space-time world : "The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns". ___William Shakespeare.

The "impact" of such internal experiences is what some call "Spiritual", because it affects the metaphorical Heart, not the material body. How does posting on a philosophy forum impact you? Apparently some get an ego boost from showing Spiritual or Transcendental people the error of their curious ways. Others engage in philosophical speculation, not for material gain, but for spiritual or intellectual development & fulfillment. :smile:

I no longer respond directly to 's sneering Gnomon-directed diatribes on this forum, over the last ten years or so. Therefore, I will address these comments to someone who seems to be more open to two-way philosophical dialogue. I will stipulate here that he may be much more intelligent & informed than me, but that haughty position allows him to make mike-drop supercilious denunciations of what he deems inferior reasoning. I'm sure he's a nice person though, if you agree with his worldview. And I agree with the immanent half of his Weltanshauung. And these analogies are intended to be illustrative, not demeaning.

Re Transcendence :
Dialoging with 180 is like discussing with your dog how & why his bowl is sometimes full, and sometimes empty. Like the dog, 180's highly evolved physical senses can detect the food, but can't reason about inferential questions : “it just is or it ain't”. The communication problem is that 180 has an extensive vocabulary with which to express his disdain for deduction, from circumstantial evidence, how & why an event --- e.g. full bowl or universe --- came to be, if it was not witnessed.

180's prosecutorial technique, in the courtroom of this forum, is to break-down the detective's holistic reasoning & inferences & hunches into isolated facts that don't add-up : “speculation!” ; “inadmissible!” ; “irrelevant!” The human's sense of smell is inferior to that of the dog*1, but his sense of reason*2 is superior ; especially deduction from circumstantial evidence*3. 180's 17th century worldview is based on watertight logic, except in the light of 20th century Relativity*4 and Uncertainty Principle. 180's jury is instructed to focus on the disconnected facts, and ignore the dot-connecting reasoning.

Obviously, or inferentially, 180 is skillfully defending his Matter-Immanent-only worldview by using all the tricks of courtroom drama. In my humble opinion though, on this forum, you should be able to view the evidence from a Philosophical worldview that goes beyond the limits of scientific investigation, but not of logical reasoning. :smile:

PS___ I will now go stick my head in a fox hole, to protect me from the return blast of icy logic.


*1. While dogs demonstrate impressive cognitive abilities, particularly in practical reasoning and inferential reasoning, human reasoning is significantly more complex. Humans excel at abstract thought, integrating diverse knowledge, and engaging in various forms of reasoning like deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Dogs, on the other hand, are more attuned to the present and rely heavily on sensory information and past experiences to solve problems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=dog+reason+vs+human+reasoning
Note --- I'm not calling 180 a "dog", but merely illustrating the difference between practical Materialistic & theoretical Idealistic reasoning.

*2. "Sense of reason" refers to the capacity for logical thought and sound judgment, enabling individuals to understand, analyze, and make decisions based on evidence and logic. It involves the ability to draw inferences, solve problems, and form conclusions through a process of reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sense+of+reason
Note --- Unlike Science, Philosophy seldom has hard evidence to support its conclusions. So they are always debatable. But on a public forum, the dialog should be respectful of a variety of opinions. Are canine examples admissible?

*3.Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that suggests a fact in issue but doesn't directly prove it. It requires the fact-finder to draw inferences to connect the evidence to the fact in question. In essence, it's evidence that implies something happened or is true without directly proving it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=circumstantial+evidence 
Note --- The suggested "fact" in question is a transcendental prior state to the Big Bang. Which opens to door to further reasoning on the ancient God question.

*4. Einstein's theory of relativity, encompassing both special and general relativity, significantly impacted philosophical thought by challenging fundamental assumptions about space, time, gravity, and the nature of reality itself. It questioned classical Newtonian physics' concepts of absolute space and time, introducing the idea of a spacetime continuum where space and time are interwoven and relative to the observer's motion. This shift in perspective influenced philosophical discussions on causality, determinism, and the nature of scientific knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+relativity+philosophy
Note --- The Big Bang theory presented us with a hiatus in the spacetime continuum. Must we fill that knowledge-gap with more spacetime, or entertain the possibility of Infinity-Eternity?

Then you misunderstand. "The world" is the entirety of reality, which would include the supernatural, if it exists. — Relativist

That statement depends on how you define "reality". Your comments seem to indicate that your "reality" excludes anything beyond the scope or our physical senses. Which are tuned to detect material substances. But philosophers are tuned into immaterial things like Other Minds. And we can infer that our interlocutors on this forum have rational minds (including AI ???), even though we can't see touch or taste them directly. The super-natural problem is similar : we infer other minds by analogy with our own inner experience. And reasoning is not a physical sense, but what philosophers think of as a meta-physical process of connecting dots. Which raises another question of definition ad infinitum. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Long story short, the theoretical pre-big-bang First Cause that you would call "supernatural", is in my own speculative worldview, analogous to the Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind that we experience in the Real world. I won't attempt to respond to your other assertions, because they all hinge on the same old dichotomy of worldviews*1, such as Materialism vs Idealism. For what it's worth, my personal worldview is not so black & white exclusive, but includes both Matter & Mind, and both immanent Nature & whatever transcendent force lit the fuse of the Big Bang nature machine. :smile:


*1. A dichotomy of worldviews refers to the tendency to divide perspectives, ideas, or values into two opposing categories. This can manifest in various contexts, such as the classic good vs. evil, or in more nuanced ways like the human/environment dichotomy. Understanding these contrasting viewpoints is crucial for navigating complex issues and fostering better communication and understanding.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=dichotomy+of+worldviews

Cosmology has not concluded our world is dependent on anything. However, cosmologists are working on theory that explains the big bang, in terms of what the prior state was. — Relativist

You sound confident about the independence of our world from any uncaused First Cause. Do you believe that measurable space-time is a continuum extending beyond the initial conditions*1 of the mathematical model known as the Big Bang? Is that confidence (faith?) based on knowledge or presumption?

Speaking of knowledge, what is the "exact nature" of that prior state, and what is the evidence for it? Is our universe "dependent" on a non-local infinite mathematical concept, which is not a "physical reality"*2? Since the Big Bang Singularity is defined as an infinite point where the "laws of nature break down", how could we follow the methods of Science beyond that point? Do you know of a scientific explanation for the "improbable smoothness" and "low entropy" of the initial state*3? Would you agree that the First Law of Thermodynamics implies that the Bang began with an unexplained input of Energy from that mysterious timeless prior state? Can you accept that the Multiverse conjecture is a myth, not a scientific fact?

Would you agree that Cosmologists like Sean Carroll*3, when faced with speculating into a state where laws of nature break down, are doing Philosophy instead of Science? Have those cosmologists solved the "puzzle" of the hypothetical "prior state" with facts that us amateur philosophers don't know, or are they just guessing, and shooting in the dark? :smile:


*1. Before the Big Bang, the prevailing theory suggests a state of initial singularity, a point of extremely high density and temperature. This singularity is not a physical location, but rather a state where all of space and time as we know them were compressed into an infinitely small point. While the Big Bang theory describes the expansion of the universe from this initial state, the exact nature of what existed "before" remains a subject of ongoing scientific exploration and debate.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+prior+state

*2. The Big Bang singularity is a mathematical concept representing the state of the universe at the very beginning of time, according to general relativity. It's a point of infinite density and temperature where the known laws of physics, as described by general relativity, break down. It's important to understand that this singularity is a feature of the mathematical model, not necessarily a physical reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+singularity+mathematical

*3. The universe materialized literally out of nothing, at a tiny but finite size, and expanded thereafter. There were no moments before the moment of smallest size because there was no “before.” Likewise, there was no “creation” of the universe, since that concept implies action in time. . . .
The improbable smoothness of the observable universe, in turn, points toward unusually tidy conditions near the Big Bang. We don’t understand why. But the order and smoothness, known to physicists as a state of low entropy, is a clue. “I strongly believe that the low entropy of the early universe is a puzzle that the wider cosmology community doesn’t take nearly as seriously as they should,” Carroll told me. “Misunderstandings like that offer opportunities for making new breakthroughs.”
___Interview with cosmologist Sean Carroll
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/what-came-before-the-big-bang/
Note --- Carroll's notion of creation in time deliberately ignores the traditional creation ex nihilo, since it does not fit with his materialistic worldview. And yet, he slipped-up with the "literally out of nothing" description.

↪180 Proof : If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. — Gnomon
Well, not only doesn't that follow (category error), but all three concepts are mere abstractions; what makes any of them "woo woo nonsense" is attributing causal – physical – properties to any of them like "creator" "mover" ... "programmer". :eyes: — Relativist

180woowoo anachronistically & erroneously confuses my metaphorical programmer G*D, with the religious God of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph & Jesus. Since the Hebrews envisioned their tribal god as a king-like humanoid entity, living above the heavens (Shamayim) imagined as a crystal dome (firmament), yet immanent within the complete world system. {image ⓵} 180 denigrates "mere abstractions" , but some abstractions are more useful than others*1. You may be more open to discussing meta-physical philosophical metaphors than 180 is.

The Judeo-Christian intervening immanent "God" is indeed a different logical & philosophical category from my God of the philosophers : similar to Spinoza's immanent deus sive natura. Except that modern cosmology forces us to deal with the necessity of a transcendent Cause to explain the Big Bang. For example, mathematicians have found the metaphysical transcendent notions of Zero & Infinity useful for their logical explorations. Another logical, but irrational notion is the number PI. It's labeled as "transcendent" because it does not exist on the number line. And it is "irrational" because it cannot be computed as a ratio of other numbers. Does that metaphysical logic sound like "woo woo" to you?

Since secular cosmology has concluded that our world is not self-existent --- as Spinoza assumed --- would you agree that "how & why it came into existence" is a reasonable philosophical question? And any answer we posit will be an unproven conjecture, not a verifiable fact ; an abstract concept, not a material object. The humanoid Hebrew God is indeed a different philosophical category from Zero & Infinity, pure abstract Logical structures. But to me, G*D is also a "mere abstraction", but like Zero a useful concept for inquiring philosophers. Not a tyrant in the sky for us mortals to cower before, but a reasonable answer to the question of world origins.

180's accusation of "attributing causal properties to mere abstractions" missed the point of the Zero & Infinity analogy. As usual, he interprets a metaphor literally. The Causation I "attribute" to the pre-Bang {image ⓶} Source of Cause & Laws (energy & limits) is not a physical property, but merely the burst of Potential that powered the Big Bang from No-Thing to the "endless forms most beautiful"*2 of Darwin's world. Some cosmologists --- ignoring the first & second laws of thermodynamics --- like to imagine that Energy itself is eternal. But only in its timeless Potential state of statistical Probability is causal Energy safe from energy-devouring Entropy.

But even that common scientific term for causal capability is a meta-physical concept of transforming abstract Potential (voltage) into concrete Actual (current). And a cosmological Programmer is one who has the ability to setup a world system with the capability of performing an assigned task, a purpose. Apparently 180 doesn't see any purpose to an evolving world that began with nothing (zero) but Potential (infinity) and has produced inquiring Minds that explore the mystery of Being. :smile:

*1.Yes, the concept of infinity is very useful, particularly in mathematics and physics, despite being an abstract idea. It's used to describe things that are unbounded or limitless, and it helps simplify calculations and model complex phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+infinity+useful

*2. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species"



❶ ANACHRONISTIC WORLDVIEWS


❷ BEFORE THE BANG

If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter? — Skalidris

I suppose most of the creativity in western Philosophy occurred in the Golden Age of the Greeks, who basically defined the methods & terminology of the rational pursuit of Wisdom. Since then, philosophers have focused on "dissecting" those original ideas*1, and "criticizing" those that depart from some off-spring orthodoxy : e.g. Scientism. :smile:


*1. The quote "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is attributed to Alfred North Whitehead. He suggested that much of Western philosophy, in its development and articulation, can be understood as engaging with, responding to, or building upon the ideas presented by Plato.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=footnotes+to+plato+quote

I appreciate your response and that all sounds interesting, but right now I am trying to understand hylomorphism simpliciter (viz., the OG theory). I still haven't been able to wrap my head around what 'matter' is if it does not refer to merely the 'stuff' which are the parts that are conjoined with the form to make up the whole. — Bob Ross

In skimming this thread, I must have missed "the OG theory". And "hylomorphism simpliciter" may be above my pay grade. But I think has clearly & simply presented the traditional philosophical answer to your basic question "what is matter"? And he has even introduced the non-classical Quantum notion of statistical Stuff (pure Form?). Which, absent the hyle, probably would not make sense to Aristotle, but might fit into Plato's world of abstract Forms.

So, I'd like to add that modern physics has a counter-intuitive mathematical definition of Matter, that doesn't make sense to non-mathematicians : the fundamental element of reality is not material (actual) "stuff"*1, but immaterial (statistical) Fields*2. Since those Fields are not something you can see or touch, they are more like Aristotle's Potentia (statistical probability) as distinguished from Actus (real thing).

The total Universal (unified) Field is mathematically defined in terms of an infinite array of dimensionless points, not in space, but of space. Which amounts to nothing, unless those valueless points consist of Potential Energy, that can be actualized, or realized, or excited by some outside force or internal perturbations (conflicts?)*3. Unlike that imaginary Field, some local fields (e.g. electromagnetic) are measurable, hence real & physical & dimensional. But the UF is an Ideal, and may be equivalent to Aristotle's Potentia*4, which may also be the "formless stuff" that combines with enforming (actualizing) Energy to produce tangible Matter : hylo + morph.

It's over my head, but A.N. Whitehead published a Quantum Field Theory*5 of his own, in which the excited "points" of Potential are defined as "Events" or "Occasions". I find it easier to imagine those particular events as actualizations of potential Energy (Causation). Which, depending on ambient conditions, may take on the form of mathematical Mass (graviton?), or tangible Matter (particles). Since I haven't fully digested this theory myself, I'll just mention it in passing, as one more way to imagine the HyloMorph notion.

The bottom line for me is Form (non-physical essence), which is monistic & simplistic in that it has no internal parts, but omnipotential, in that it can transform into both Energy & Matter, and eventually Mind. :nerd:

PS___ Sorry to get so technical & complicated, but I'm still working on a modern scientific equivalent to the ancient notion of HyloMorphism. In my thesis I call it EnFormAction.


*1. Yes, in physics, fields are considered fundamental concepts. They are not just mathematical constructs, but rather represent the underlying reality of how forces and particles interact. In quantum field theory, particles are understood as excitations of these underlying fields.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physics+field+is+fundamental
Note --- The "excitations" are supposed to be inputs of energy. But where do those pinpricks come from, if the Field is all there is? Stick a pin in a Field, and a bit of Matter pops out.

*2. In the context of quantum field theory (QFT), the term"immaterial" can be misleading. Quantum fields are considered fundamental physical entities, not in the sense of tangible matter, but as the basis for all other physical phenomena. They are not made of anything else, but rather, particles are seen as excitations or disturbances within these fields.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+immaterial
Note --- In my own theory, the Fields are made of Potential, that can transform into Energy or Matter.

*3. In modern physics, particularly within quantum field theory (QFT), matter is fundamentally understood as excitations or manifestations of underlying fields, rather than being comprised of discrete, fundamental particles. These fields are not just mathematical constructs, but are considered the most fundamental aspect of reality, with particles being secondary emergent phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physics+matter+is+fundamentally+a+field
Note --- Whence the "excitations"?

*4. In Aristotelian philosophy, "matter" and "potentia" (or potentiality) are closely related concepts. Matter, in this context, refers to the underlying substance that has the potential to take on different forms. Potentia, on the other hand, is the capacity or possibility for something to become actualized. Essentially, matter is the substratum that possesses potential, and potentia is the inherent ability of that matter to change and develop into a specific form. . . . .
Aristotle viewed matter as the fundamental, formless stuff that underlies all physical things.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potentia+and+matter

*5. Whitehead's philosophy, particularly his concept of "actual occasions" or "events," offers a framework for interpreting quantum field theory. His process philosophy, emphasizing becoming and relationships, aligns with quantum mechanics' focus on processes and interactions, and his ideas about indeterminacy and creativity resonate with quantum phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+quantum+field+theory

But what if what I am seeing is not what is really there, but merely a representation, just like a portrait does not contain the real person? What if seeing is not believing—but merely interpreting? — Kurt

What you are describing sounds like a social contract*1, in which what we both see is real, and what we individually imagine is ideal or unreal (or woo woo). Some of us prefer one or the other, or both Reality & Ideality. For Scientists & Materialists, seeing is believing. But for Philosophers & Spiritualists, imagining may be believable too. Yet, as various philosophers & scientists have noted : seeing is always interpreting*2. :smile:


*1. Shared reality refers to the perception that one's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs are aligned with those of another person or group. It's the sense that you and others experience the world in a similar way, leading to a feeling of connection and validation. This shared understanding can be about anything from trivial matters to fundamental beliefs, and it plays a significant role in social bonding and personal well-being.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=shared+reality

*2. In philosophy, the idea that "seeing is interpreting" suggests that our perception of the world is not a passive reception of raw sensory data, but rather an active process of making sense of that data based on prior knowledge, experiences, and expectations. We don't just see what is physically present; we interpret what we see based on our internal frameworks.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+seeing+is+interpreting

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. — alleybear

As others have so helpfully pointed out, "nothing" cannot or does not exist. That's why the concept of Zero took so long to catch-on with mathematicians*1. The relevant point here is that No-Thing means no physical existence, hence no usefulness for Science or Mechanics. But the meta-physical concept of Nothingness*2 is useful for philosophical purposes.

Those who challenge your god-concept are imagining the Deity as a physical material substantial entity. In that sense it makes sense to ask "who created your God?" But Aristotle defined his notion of Substance, as not the material thing, but the immaterial Essence or Form of the thing. And Plato defined his Forms*3 as eternal & self-existent. Hence, essential & fundamental, not objective or optional.

So, in the interest of clarity, perhaps you could explain that the God of Philosophers is not an Idol of gold-plated wood or flesh-covered bones, but a meta-physical concept, similar to Infinity (∞), which also does not exist in the real physical world. If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. Unfortunately, an impotent Nothingness could not create a universe from scratch. So you'd have to add the concept of Potential*4, which also does not exist physically, until Actualized. :smile:


*1. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Even though zero is a fundamental idea for the modern science, initially the notion of a complete absence got a largely negative, sometimes hostile, treatment by the Western world and Greco-Roman philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero:_The_Biography_of_a_Dangerous_Idea

*2. Metaphysical Nothingness :
Since metaphysics is the study of what exists, one might expect metaphysicians to have little to say about the limit case in which nothing exists. . . . .
Let’s begin with a question that Martin Heidegger famously characterized as the most fundamental issue of philosophy. . . . .
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

*3. Essential Form :
Plato's theory of Forms posits that the Forms are self-existent and independent of the physical world or individual minds
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+form+self+existent

*4. Potential is Unreal :
The statement "potential does not exist" is a philosophical point, not a scientific one. In physics, potential is a measurable quantity related to stored energy or the ability of a system to do work. In other contexts, potential refers to unrealized abilities or possibilities. While "potential" in the sense of a future reality may not be physically present, the capacity for that future to exist is often acknowledged as real.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+does+not+exist
Note --- A creator God is real & measurable, only if the creation is physical & material. According to Cosmologists, there was a beginning point in Time, when our material universe did not exist. But the Energy & Laws that cause & govern our world, necessarily pre-existed the beginning of physical evolution. That's what Aristotle called First & Final Cause (Ability & Purpose). God is the "capacity" for cosmic creation.
.

Let me tell y'all about my god (who's still around, by the way).

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. Whatever entity caused the creation of existence is my god. Since nothing existed, my god had to use itself for materials/energies to create with, so I am literally a part of my god. If you go with the Big Bang theory, a few hundred million years after the universe started, at the end of the hot plasma phase, the first OG atom, hydrogen, was created. Those hydrogen atoms are still in existence since they don't die. Those billions of years old hydrogen atoms are within our bodies today. We are physically linked to our universe's origin. — alleybear

Your "god" sounds a lot like Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover, which was a logical necessity, not an emotional source of succor & sanction. In other words, it's the "god of the philosophers", not the God of theologians. Although you mentioned physical evidence, your "entity" is also not a Nature God aiming lightening bolts at evil-doers.

Instead, your Creation Causer sounds more like A.N. Whitehead's PanEnTheistic principle*1, both immanent and transcendent. That's also how I view my own god-model, which I like to describe functionally as a Programmer*2. Since I don't have any reliable direct or prophetic revelations of this philosophical Principle, or any "higher insight" & "participatory knowledge", all I know about this logical necessity is that something like it is logically necessary to understand how we, and our world, evolved from mathematical Big Bang Singularity to biological Nature-as-we-know-it, and to human Culture that is on the verge of becoming interplanetary, and to little ole me & you.

Is any of this interpolation close to your god-model? :smile:


*1. Whitehead's God :
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the on-going process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page46.html

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
[ see post 64 ] [ see Programmer God at sidebar ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

But as you so eloquently say, we do find ourselves putting the pieces of our history together in a narrative. This is an inevitable consequence of living a reflective life. This may be a sort of mythologising, a sense-making that to a large extent sits outside critical appraisal, at least by it's author. — Banno

In my youth, I had little exposure to Philosophy outside of Theological argumentation. As a Post-religion adult though, my "reflective life" was mostly Science-based, until the Great Recession and subsequent Retirement gave me time for impractical philosophizing. Triggered by a perplexed comment from a quantum physicist --- "it's all information!" --- I was motivated to create my own personal worldview (mythology), based mostly on key concepts from Quantum Physics and Information Science.

I call that "narrative" a mythology because A> I am not a scientist, and B> my narrative goes beyond the evidence for a something-from-nothing beginning. Both of those limitations left me vulnerable to harsh criticisms by those who revere classical science and abhor transcendent narratives. But I see no reason why theoretical philosophy must be limited by the empirical rules of science. For example, Aristotle, whose writings were mostly based on empirical observations, reasoned from the obvious imperfections & contingencies of Nature that, logically, there must be something like an Ideal Source of creation & causation*1.

Since I have no colleagues to censor my personal myth, I depend on this forum for "outside critical appraisal". Some of that criticism has been bulldozer fault-finding --- showing me where I need to patch the myth --- and some has been holistic & constructive. I am not the hero of my unfinished myth, but it does put my little life into a wider perspective. :smile:


*1. Aristotle's first cause argument, also known as the unmoved mover argument, posits that everything in the universe that undergoes change must have a cause, and that this chain of causes cannot extend infinitely backward. Therefore, there must be a first cause, an "unmoved mover," that initiates all motion and change without itself being moved by anything else. This first cause, according to Aristotle, is God, according to some interpretations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+first+cause+argument
Note --- Logically, the First Cause cannot itself be an effect of a prior cause. So, some view the Big Bang as a Secondary Cause, which leaves open the question of "what caused the Bang?" Of course, nobody knows the answer to that, but like Aristotle, we can reason beyond what is now known, to speculate on the First and Final Cause. Unless, of course, that going-beyond seems critical of someone else's mythical Narrative.

Good. I'm pleased with the attention it has garnered. Yes, 'dissection' is pretty much 'analysis' but I went with the former both in order to leave behind some bagage, and to take advantage of the alliteration. — Banno

I've noticed that several posts in this thread speak of having a "narrative" as-if it's a bad thing, like fiction or myth. Is "dissection" or "analysis" of a philosophical Narrative different from literary Criticism? In philosophy, how is a Narrative different from having a self-examined philosophical Position or personal Worldview, in which all parts of the story are integrated by a central principle or core value? I suppose it's that core belief (e.g. God) that critics attempt to seek out and dissect. Does analytical revelation of that Core Value determine whether the Narrative is True or False, Good or Bad? Or is the critic's worldview the deciding factor? :smile:


Philosophical Narrative :
Many philosophers argue that our sense of self is shaped by the narratives we construct about our lives. According to some philosophers on Oxford Academic, our personal identity is not a fixed entity but rather a narrative we continually revise and refine.
#. Narrative can play a crucial role in ethical reflection, helping us understand moral dilemmas and evaluate actions by considering their narrative consequences or their alignment with certain ethical frameworks.
#. Narrative analysis is a method used to examine the structure, content, and function of narratives in various contexts, including literature, history, and everyday life.
#. Narratives can shape our perceptions of reality, influencing how we understand events, people, and ourselves.
#. Daniel Dennett, while not strictly a narrative philosopher, uses the concept of the "narrative self" to explain how we construct a sense of self through the stories we tell.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+narrative

If I am right, then it seems like we can get rid of 'matter' (in Aristotle's sense) and retain form (viz., actuality). Each thing, then, would be caused by a prior actuality which would provide it with compresence of properties, identity through time, and potency by the mere causality of forms upon forms until we trace it back to the being which has a form that entails existence (i.e., God).
Am I misunderstanding the view? — Bob Ross

Not at all! From my amateur perspective, you have hit the entailing nail (Pure Potential) on the head. My own personal worldview is based on a notion similar to Hylomorphism, but expressed in 21st century terms : Information & Causation. Information is the meaning (definition) of a knowable thing, and Causation is the trans-form-action of that physical Thing (hyle) into a new Form (morph).

The science of Cosmology has traced this transformation of Energy into Matter back to the Big Bang beginning. At that point, the trail goes cold in an abyss of infinity, so pragmatic scientists close-up shop and go home. But philosophers, undeterred by absence of hard evidence, leap the information gap into the unknown by means of rational inference (every action has a prior cause) and poetic metaphor (chicken & egg ; tree & seed).

Philosophy doesn't reveal practical Facts, but theoretical Truths. For example, in imagination, Aristotle followed the trail of Causation to the end of observation, and then deduced a First Cause prior to the known-world Effect. Being practical-minded though, he didn't call it a conventional God, but gave it an operational definition : such as Unmoved Mover. Likewise, Plato made a functional distinction, similar to Hylomorphism, in terms of Potentiality & Actuality. Like a Creator God though, prior Potential “entails” the existence of Actual things --- or what Whitehead called “actual occasions”.

You asked : “why would we need to posit a real potency”? In my thesis of Enformationism, the Form (whatness) of a new thing is necessarily prior*1 to the material existence (isness) of the observable object. In my former profession as an Architect, a new building is posterior*1 to the design (form ; concept) of its structure. That complex idea must be conveyed to builders as an abstract design (blueprint), and then implemented in concrete bricks & mortar. Without the design (morph), a brick is just dried mud.

In this analogy, the “real potency” is merely an imaginary Idea, or Ideal (definition of a thing). And the idealizing Mind that dreams-up the idea (design) has traditionally been described as some kind of anthro-morphic creator : a God or Cosmic Architect. But, due to my emphasis on the compresence*2 of physical & metaphysical Information*3 --- like Einstein's equation of Energy & Matter --- I like to call that "prior actuality" a Programmer.

To modern secular minds, such unreal immaterial “Potency” does not make sense. And yet, Potential can be defined as not-yet-real. And we have many examples of such potency (e.g. voltage) in the real world. So, the notion of a pre-bang First Cause does make functional sense, if not factual sensation. :smile:


*1.In Bayesian statistics, prior probability is your initial belief about an event or parameter before observing any data, while posterior probability is the updated belief after incorporating new information or evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=prior+vs+posterior+probability

*2. The "compresence of opposites" refers to the philosophical idea that contrary or contradictory properties can exist simultaneously in the same thing or within a single entity. This concept is often explored in the context of understanding the nature of reality, particularly in relation to Plato's theory of Forms and the nature of sensible particulars.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=compresence+of+opposites

*3. What is Information?
The Power to Enform
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

What I want to propose is that there are two different ways of doing philosophy. There are those who do philosophy through discourse. These folk set the scene, offer a perspective, frame a world, and explain how things are. Their tools are exposition and eulogistics. Their aim is completeness and coherence, and the broader the topics they encompass the better. Then there are those who dissect. These folk take things apart, worry at the joints, asks what grounds the system. Their tool is nitpicking and detail. Their aim is truth and clarity, they delight in the minutia.

The discourse sets up a perspective, a world, a game, an activity, whatever we call it. The dissection pulls it apart, exposing its assumptions, underpinnings and other entrails. Perhaps you can't have one without the other, however a theory that explains any eventuality ends up explaining nothing, and for a theory to be useful it has to rule some things out. — Banno

Thanks for the perspicacious post. I have noticed the different philosophy "styles" on this forum, but hadn't distilled it down to a polarity : Dissecting vs Doing.

Since I am an amateur philosopher, who as a retirement hobby discourses on a Philosophy Forum, I dabble in both sides of this pursuit of Truth . . . and clarity. The Analytic side may consist of “prising apart the various bits and pieces of each text and examining them for their beauty, utility and faults”. But, you could spend a lifetime “dissecting” other people's ideas, and end-up with a pile of disconnected notions.

Yet my analytically examined life is almost over. So I spend most of my time on the Application (doing) side : putting together the best bits of historical science & philosophy into a complete GPS system for steering a life through the natural & cultural labyrinth. Philosophy is both a Study and a Practice.

One way to describe a holistic philosophy is as a Worldview. Some people inherit a complete belief system --- where the "grounds" must be taken on Faith --- from their traditional social religion. But I long-ago rejected the groundless Faith of my fathers. Since then, I have been privately constructing a personalized Belief System of my own, from whatever scraps of Truth I can find by dissection of other's views, or by personal observation.

Since the cosmos itself is dynamic and ever-evolving, my emerging belief system may never be finalized. And there is always room for improvement, including both positive & negative contributions from forum posters. So, my fallible personalized worldview seems close-enough to ultimate Truth that it will help me to steer a safe course between Scylla & Charibdis, and to avoid such personal pitfalls as snarling dogmatism and supercilious dissection.

Since I am somewhat analytical by nature, I encourage others to "dissect" my own rambling reasoning, in order to reveal its weak points. And, I agree that, for the pursuit of truth, "you can't have one without the other". Yet, when critical "dissection" becomes nothing but nasty "nitpicking", "fault-finding", or political put-downs, with no alternatives offered, I call it "trolling", and end the one-sided dialog. :nerd:

So this thread is partly to assist me to gain a survey of accounts of God that might be richer and more interesting, particularly when I talk to doctrinaire atheists in the 'real world' who think they have mastered the subject. But more generally, I am interested in what people believe and why. — Tom Storm

In the US, the typical, non-philosophical, believer seems to feel the need for a sympathetic person to pray to : Jesus and/or Mary. And Jesus' absentee father-god is sort of a shadowy background figure. Do you think abstract & impersonal Philosophical god-models are "richer and more interesting", or is it intimately personal Mystical models that interest you? Personally, I found anglo-catholic Evelyn Underhill's 1911 book, Mysticism*1, very interesting, because its sophisticated, yet spiritual, portrayal of God was so different from my own literal-biblical childhood Jehovah. But, such direct mystical experience of God is not accessible to those who tend to be more Rational than Emotional. The God of Mystics is not my kind of God.

If you prefer sophisticated & intellectual god-models though, Baruch Spinoza*2 developed a revolutionary worldview for his 17th century milieu. But its very strangeness compared to our normal experience of the world, makes it a poor foundation for a religion of the people. It combines a variety of philosophical elements into a system that has been known by various names, depending on the interpreter : Idealism*3, Pantheism, Acosmism*4, etc. Do you find his Post-Judaism God more amenable than that of the Christian “literalists”? I think of Whitehead's*5 theology as a 20th century update of Spinoza's 17th century god-model, but even his paradigm needs a bit of scientific updating for the 21st century. Which I have attempted to do in my own quantum & information science-based god-model. Definitely not mystical or ecstatic or literal. :smile:

PS___ Obviously, these god-models are not revelations from God, but imaginations of God. And they may be rudimentary Scientific observations of Nature, but mostly of Human nature. Some of Spinoza's ideas are compatible with my own. But I don't consider him my guru.

*1. Evelyn Underhill, a prominent writer on Christian mysticism, viewed God as the ultimate reality and the object of the mystical journey. She emphasized the presence of God in all aspects of life, even the seemingly ordinary, and stressed the importance of both contemplation and action in seeking union with God.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evelyn+underhill+god
Note --- Click on the link for more info.

*2. Spinoza :
Spinoza is often interpreted as an acosmist, meaning he denies the independent existence of the world (cosmos) apart from God. While not denying the existence of finite things, he views them as manifestations or modes of a single, infinite substance, which is God. This interpretation, particularly by thinkers like Hegel, suggests that Spinoza's system prioritizes the unity of God over the perceived diversity of the world, leading to an acosmic view.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=acosmist+spinoza

*3. Spinoza Idealism :
While Baruch Spinoza is not a straightforward idealist in the traditional sense, his philosophy does incorporate elements that resonate with idealism, particularly in his concept of God and the relationship between mind and body. Spinoza's view, often described as objective idealism, sees God as the underlying substance of all reality, with thought and extension (matter) being two of God's infinite attributes. This differs from subjective idealism, which posits that reality is fundamentally mental.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+idealism

*4. An "acosmist" is someone who believes in or adheres to the philosophical doctrine of acosmism. Acosmism, in turn, is the view that the finite world, or the world of our everyday experience, does not have true or independent reality, and that only God or the infinite is truly real. Essentially, it posits that the world we perceive is an illusion or a manifestation of the divine, not a separate, independent entity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=acosmist

*5. Alfred North Whitehead and Baruch Spinoza are both important figures in Western philosophy, but they have distinct approaches to metaphysics. Whitehead's philosophy emphasizes process and becoming, while Spinoza's is rooted in substance and a more static view of reality. Both, however, are considered important figures in the history of metaphysics and have influenced each other's work. 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+spinoza

Do you have a robust reading of Whitehead or Godel's theisms? — Tom Storm

Since I am an untrained amateur philosopher, you may not consider these blog posts a "robust reading". But they may serve as a brief capsule of his Philosophy and his Theology. :smile:

Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality
Whitehead also defined his natural + super-natural lawmaker-deity in terms that are more scientific and philosophical than religious⁷. For example : “non-temporal” = eternal ; “primordial - consequent” = both creator & creation ; “potential” = pre-big-bang world-creating power ; “anti-entropic” = what I call Enformy⁹.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

The Point of Process Philosophy
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

Clearly, what I’m asking for is a survey of different, more philosophical accounts of theism to contrast with the literalist versions put forward by many apologists. — Tom Storm

I assume that by "literalist" you mean those who accept the Christian bible as the revealed word of God. But, I've seen very few bible-thumpers on this forum. So most of the god-models that are discussed seem to be some variation on what Blaise Pascal derisively called the "god of the philosophers"*1. That was probably a reference to his contemporary Baruch Spinoza, and his Pantheistic equation of God with Nature. Spinoza denied the validity of the Jewish scriptures, supposedly revealed by God via human prophets. So his substantial & immanent god-model was derived by human reasoning, which for "literalists" was trivial compared to the omniscience of God.

The exemplars of nuance you mentioned in the OP, Tillich & Hart, are Theologians with some commitment to religious doctrine. Have you found any secular non-religious Philosophers who fit your definition of a nuanced notion of God? C.S. Pierce, A.N. Whitehead, Kurt Gödel, for example. :smile:


*1. The "God of the Philosophers" refers to the concept of God as understood through philosophical reasoning and natural theology, rather than through revelation or religious tradition. This God is often described as an impersonal, abstract force or a maximally great being, rather than a personal, active God as found in religious texts like the Bible.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=god+of+the+philosophers

Or is an imagined telos merely an anthropomorphic, indeed anthropocentric, projection? — Janus

"Imagined Telos"*1 and "Projection" make the notion of a direction to evolution sound like wishful thinking. But a more positive way to label that idea is Interpretation or Inference. For example, cosmologists have interpreted the stellar red-shift to mean that the universe is expanding in all physical directions. Physicists have also interpreted physical Entropy as an inevitable result of the second law of thermodynamics. But they also imagined our experience of a flow from past to future as an Arrow of Time*2 : a Telos.

On the other hand, Whitehead's notion of Purposeful Cosmic Telos*3 is both an inference from evidence of the Arrow of Time, and a causal interpretation in terms of the original impulse that set the universe on this course into the unknown. So where are we going, and why?

Scientists tend to not ask Why? questions. But philosophers have always wanted to know Why the world is in the dynamic directional state of, not only expansion, but of qualitative evolution, from near nothing to Life, Mind, and Culture (as a supplement to Nature). As a product of the human (not animal) Mind, Teleology is indeed anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. But is the Telos a projection onto, or an inference from the observable cosmos? :smile:


*1. "Imagined telos" refers to a concept in philosophy and art where individuals or communities envision and create a future purpose or goal. This future purpose is not necessarily based on established facts or historical patterns, but rather on imagination and hope for a better state of affairs.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imagined+telos

*2. The arrow of time refers to the directional nature of time, the phenomenon that time flows from past to future. This is a central concept in physics and philosophy, with the second law of thermodynamics playing a key role in explaining it. While the fundamental laws of physics don't inherently favor a direction of time, the increasing entropy of isolated systems (as described by the second law) creates the observable arrow of time, making it clear that time moves forward rather than backward.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=arrow+of+time

*3. In Whitehead's process philosophy, teleology refers to the idea that everything in the universe is moving towards a specific end or purpose. Whitehead believes that reality is fundamentally a dynamic process of becoming, and that all entities, including humans, are striving towards some form of fulfillment or "telos". This telos is not a pre-determined destiny, but rather a constantly evolving goal that is shaped by the ongoing creative process of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+teleology

What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't? — Gnomon
I’m trying to read this charitably. Is condescension something you tend to fall back on when challenged? What exactly were you trying to express here? — Tom Storm

"What do you find intriguing" is a serious question to determine where you are coming from. "To provide a larger context" is just one possible response. The "doggy ideal" of food in the bowl is an example of basic Physicalism, unencumbered by abstract ideas. "What does he know" is just a repeat of a question in your OP.

The questions quoted were intended to be sincere philosophical inquiries to elicit a better understanding of your worldview. Which is still opaque to me. The OP seems to imply a wish to return to a "classical theism", but leaves it open for interpretation of what that refers to*1. You denied being a Materialist, and offered that you are intrigued by Idealism. But to what extent? Idealism can be critiqued as wishful thinking, inappropriate for living in the Real world. Or applauded as an example of going beyond the obvious to a more subtle understanding of mundane reality.

Sophisticated language can sometimes use esoteric words, and "tendentious distinctions" that obscure their meaning for us simple-minded folk. For example, you referenced Hart's "ultimate reality", but that's just as abstract & obscure as "ground of being". Then you asked "what does it mean?" Amen! I have used that enigmatic term myself, but followed up with more functional descriptions of the role of God in the real world.

As you said, "Such accounts seem to head towards the mystical and the murky realm of ineffability". That's why I am trying to discover what kind of "account" you would find more convincing to modern philosophers. A viable answer to that query is important to me. And was one motivation for my creating a down-to-earth god-model that is more descriptive & meaningful than "ground of being". My philosophical god-concept serves not as the transcendent over-lord for our devolved Garden of Eden, but as the essence of Matter & Energy, and the immanent cause of every event in physical evolution.

You said that Hart's "account of God comes from a vast tradition". How would you describe that tradition : Orthodox Christianity?*1. If so, that would help me to grasp what you mean by "more sophisticated philosophical accounts". Does that tradition seem radical compared to "more contemporary theological personalism"? If so, I misinterpreted the thread title, and will have little to offer on the topic.

My questions are not intended to be disrespectful, but to be probing. I suppose I'm poking around in spots that are sore from past experience on this forum. :smile:


*1. David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox scholar of religion and a philosopher, writer, and cultural commentator.
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/interviews/what-we-think-we-know-about-god

John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy. — Wayfarer

I haven't read anything by Vervaeke, but I Googled and found this summary of his worldview*1. His notion to "untangle the sacred from the supernatural" makes sense to me. Although my personal worldview has a role for a Transcendent First Cause or Tao, that is necessarily pre-natural, I don't see any reason to worship such an abstract concept. My G*D concept is basically Spinoza's deus sive natura with accomodations for 21st century cosmology and 5th century BC philosophy.

The definition of his Essentialism*2 in terms of an eternal essence seems to be an update of Plato's Ideal Forms. This also is amenable to my worldview, which prefers to avoid referring to the Primal Essence as "God", due to the term's historical religious contamination by association with human tyrants. But Metaphysical Essentialism --- if it implies a transcendent source of Qualia --- might also clash with the OP's wish for a return to a "classical metaphysical" Theism --- if "classical" refers to Catholic Scholasticism, which definitely "entangled" sacred taboos with supernatural sovereignty. :smile:




*1. Vervaeke uses the terms “metaphysical essentialism” to refer to this attitude. He argues that if we want to solve our meaning crisis, we must untangle the sacred from the supernatural. We have to come up with a way of re-articulating our worldview in which we can get back that sense of deep connectedness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+John+Vervaeke

*2. Metaphysical essentialism is a philosophical concept that proposes that things possess an inherent, unchanging essence that defines their identity and determines their properties. This essence is considered necessary and sufficient for an entity to be what it is. In essence, metaphysical essentialism argues that things have a fundamental nature that remains constant, regardless of their accidental properties or changes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+essentialism%E2%80%9D

For many, the divine (deity seems a little anthropomorphic) reveals itself not by supernatural means but through the self organizing processes of nature (pantheism or panentheism depending on particulars).
The seeming striving against entropy, chaos, the void, the deep for novelty, organization, complexity, experience and creative advance. — prothero

That is exactly the kind of natural Revelation that turned me away from Atheism toward Deism. The "self organizing processes" of Nature are what led A.N. Whitehead to write his magnum opus of Process and Reality. I was somewhat surprised to learn that someone of his intellectual stature had reached the same conclusion as had, not from religious revelations but from pragmatic godless scientific exploration of natural processes. How could a self-organizing system emerge from a random Bang in the dark? That "striving against entropy" is what Schrodinger called "Negentropy" (free energy) and what I call "Enformy"*1 (causal en-form-action). :smile:


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

You are misunderstanding what I said apparently. I said that an unknowable divinity offers no solace or salvation. A personal divinity who reveals itself through revelation is not an unknowable divinity, and is able to promise salvation and thus offer solace. — Janus

Mea culpa. Due to my personal bias, I did not interpret Faith in Revelation as a viable means of knowing the "unknown god" (Acts 17:23). As you say though, millions of people throughout history and around the world have found such indirect revelation (via human "witnesses" & interpreters)*1 to offer salvation & solace.

In my experience, I have found the primary Revelation (Bible)*2 of Christianity to be a record of Imperial Rome's need to create a unifying alternative to its divisive babble of multicultural polytheistic religions, and the watered-down official religion of the Pantheon. Obviously, placing the burden on Faith instead of Works (and Reason) has worked beyond the dreams of "visionary" Constantine*3, the Trump of his day, to Make Rome Great Again. I hope you will pardon my unofficial notion of "knowable". :wink:

PS___ In my personal worldview, the direct revelation of G*D is the self-organizing world itself. Unfortunately, the only solace offered is something like Stoic Eudaimonia.


*1. While it's true that Christianity encompasses a vast number of denominations and sects, estimating a precise number is difficult. Estimates range from 200 in the U.S. to a staggering 45,000 or more globally. These numbers highlight the diverse range of beliefs and practices within the Christian faith
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=thousands+of+christian+religions
Note --- One revelation, thousands of interpretations & implementations.

*2. The official Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church is the Vulgate, which was affirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
Note --- There was no "official" revelation until the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Even 1500 years later, scholars were still re-interpreting the "revelation".

*3. The first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity was Constantine the Great. After a vision before the Battle of Milvian Bridge, he declared his support for Christianity in 312 CE and gradually transitioned the religion from a persecuted minority to a favored religion within the Roman Empire. This led to the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which granted religious tolerance and allowed Christians to practice their faith openly. Constantine's conversion and subsequent policies marked a significant turning point for Christianity and its eventual establishment as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=roman+emperor+christianity

You are difficult to have a discussion with because you seem to keep turning it into battles you think you’re having with people, instead of actually reading what I’m saying. None of the points you raise apply to my position. — Tom Storm

Again, I have to apologize for asking questions that upset you. I'm just trying to understand what you mean, behind what you say : the implications. 180proof does indeed make philosophical dialog into a "battle" between opposing worldviews. {see PS below} But, I'm actually interested in your perspective on the God question. That's why I ask "why" questions. If you don't like to label your personal philosophy with conventional terms, a longer, detailed post might suffice to present a "philosophical defense"*1 of a specific position. So far, I haven't been able to get a fix on your "position".

However, if you don't like to get litigious on historically contentious topics, it would be better to not issue a challenge to converse in Metaphysical terms*2. Perhaps following the example of legalistic Judaism, the medieval Catholic Scholastics used "sophisticated" metaphysical arguments --- some of them polemical & pugnacious*3. The problem with Metaphysics on this forum is that, for many posters, scientifically validated physical evidence is much more persuasive. That's why my worldview includes both, but like Whitehead's Process Philosophy, focuses mainly on making the rational First Cause (God postulate) acceptable to modern thinkers in a science dominated world.

Historically, the "God" question has both pro & con Metaphysical arguments*4. Do you find any of them convincing? :smile:

PS___ I suspect that the "battles" you find in my posts, are actually my indirect responses to 180proof's parallel posts. These physical/metaphysical*5 skirmishes have been going on for years. Yet, because he seldom engages in philosophical arguments, but polemical attacks instead, I long ago ceased replying directly to him. So I must beg your pardon for using your thread to make my counterpoints.


*1. A philosophical defense, similar to a legal defense, presents an argument without necessarily making a positive case for a particular conclusion. Instead, it aims to address criticisms or objections raised against a philosophical position, providing justification and clarification.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+defense

*2. "In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones." ___Tom Storm, original post

*3. Scholastic Disputes :
There was no single Scholastic doctrine; each of the Scholastics developed a distinct philosophy, which was often in disagreement with the systems of fellow teachers. . . . .
Masters also held disputations in which the affirmative and negative sides of a question were thoroughly argued by students and teacher before the latter resolved the problem.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scholasticism/Enduring-features

*4.Metaphysical arguments against God often explore philosophical inconsistencies or logical paradoxes inherent in the concept of God, challenging the idea of a perfect, omnipotent, and benevolent being. These arguments focus on the properties attributed to God, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness, and how these seemingly contradict the existence of evil, suffering, and apparent divine hiddenness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+arguments+against+god

*5. metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Note --- 180proof's worldview is based on Spinoza's notion of an Immanent God. Hence, no essential Being, no First Cause, and nothing that does not Change. And no need for Metaphysical arguments. Do you find Spinoza's common-sense approach to metaphysical topics acceptable?

Personally, I have a limited capacity or interest in speculations - you have a much more intense curiosity and deeper reading than me. — Tom Storm

If that is the case, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Did you expect responses to your OP to be lists of hard Facts? What is Philosophy, if not "speculations" beyond the range of our physical senses, into the invisible realm of Ideas, Concepts, and Opinions?

Pragmatism*1 is a good policy for routine mundane activities. But when faced with novel situations or questions beyond here & now, that policy may fail to get practical results. If you want to see some arguments against Pragmatism*2 --- e.g. superficiality & lack of empathy --- click on the link below. :nerd:

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing. I have no expertise in quantum physics and I know most physicists remain committed to physicalism - what do they know that you and I don't? I couldn't say and it's not my area. — Tom Storm

What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't?

Until the 20th century, Science was grounded in deterministic Newtonian physics, random Darwinian biology, and spyglass Cosmology. But statistical Quantum Physics, variable Genetic Biology, and creation-event Cosmology have opened-up a whole new world for scientific & philosophical exploration. None of those professions are "my area", but I probably know more about them than the average layman. I feel that I need to know something about the foundations of the Real world, in order to rationally discuss lofty notions about the Ideal cosmos.

Personally, I find all of those technical fields "intriguing". But for us to draw valid philosophical conclusions from such narrow-scope sciences, it's necessary to learn some nuts & bolts about how the world works from those new perspectives. On this forum, some basic familiarity with Quantum Reality should be your "area", if you are going to discuss modern & non-traditional notions of God, and why our contingent world exists. :halo:

A lot of what you think is natural to you — just part of how your mind works — is actually culturally internalized. — Wayfarer

Physicalism, Materialism, Naturalism are philosophical worldviews that have been "culturally internalized" since the 17th century revolution in science. For most of us, they seem natural & normal, and unquestionable. But philosophers feel free to question everything. :smile:


*1. Pragmatism and idealism represent contrasting philosophical approaches. Pragmatism emphasizes practicality and the consequences of actions, focusing on what works in the real world. Idealism, on the other hand, prioritizes ideas, vision, and the potential of what should be.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pragmatism+vs+idealism

*2. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the practical consequences of ideas and beliefs, evaluating their "truth" based on their effectiveness in solving problems and achieving desired outcomes
While it has influenced various fields like law, education, and social science, it also faces significant criticisms. Here are some of the main arguments against pragmatism:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+pragmatism+is+bad

Your next statement and its formulation is a reason I guessed you are riffing off the beliefs of your youth. You can't resist bagging materialists at most opportunities when there are so few, if any, on this site. — Tom Storm

You must not post on the same topics that I do. Ask Wayfarer and Count Timothy von Icarus about their encounters with many Materialists, Atheists, and Empiricists of various stripes. As you might expect, they make paradoxical physical & scientific arguments about metaphysical & philosophical questions, such as this one : about the "nature" & being of a non-physical immaterial god. If it's physical & natural, it ain't a god, it's an idol.

Most of the threads I post on start-out high-minded, but eventually descend into "bagging" Idealists & Theists. So, I spend a lot of time defending my non-religious Philosophical concepts from accusations & characterizations of religious Creeds, scientific Ignorance, and plain Stupidity. I never attack, but I do make counter-arguments, that may seem like an attack on cherished beliefs. Fortunately, a few posters do attempt to make positive philosophical arguments, instead of negative us-vs-them political attacks like 180. :cool:

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing. I have no expertise in quantum physics and I know most physicists remain committed to physicalism - what do they know that you and I don't? I couldn't say and it's not my area. — Tom Storm

If you are not a materialist or a scientist, do you use any alternative term to describe your metaphysical worldview*1. I reluctantly use terms like Deist, which is confused with religion, but try to avoid Idealist, because it just sounds silly & impractical.

Personally, I am not a Chemist, but If I was I would be "committed" to Materialism. Likewise, a professional Physicist should be committed to Physicalism. Back when I was a practicing Architect/Engineer, I was an Empiricist & Theorist, dealing with both material structures and immaterial concepts. But as an amateur Philosopher, my commitment is to Idealism, in the sense of the Science of Ideas.

For all practical purposes, I could be labeled a Materialist or Physicalist, because I live in a world of Matter & Energy. But for theoretical explorations on a philosophy forum, I am an Idealist, because I live in a world of Ideas, and this is a forum for exchanging ideas, not things. But if I lived in the Paleozoic Age, I would be an animal, because there would be no ideas to engage in. :wink:



*1. A metaphysical worldview, often called a metaphysics, is a philosophical system that explores the fundamental nature of reality, encompassing questions about existence, reality, and the world beyond the physical. It delves into what things are, how they exist, and the nature of reality itself. Metaphysics seeks to understand the underlying principles and structures of the universe, including whether it's purely physical or if there are non-physical entities like minds or souls.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+worldview