Yet, the attitude which I recommend is one that's common knowledge: If life gives ya lemons, make lemonade! — Agent Smith

Yes! Animals have no choice, but to grimly gulp the lemons, while making a lemon-face. But humans can add a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. :joke:

What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence. — Agent Smith

Humans are flexible in their beliefs : If it "works", it doesn't matter if it's real. For example, the number "Zero" refers to that which does not exist. But the gap-filler symbol (0) of emptiness has been found to be very useful in higher math (higher than fingers & toes). Likewise, imaginary numbers are non-existent in any physical sense, yet again ivory tower mathematicians find them to be necessary or inevitable for their abstract purposes. Even Potential, as defined by Aristotle, is non-existent but powerful. Imagine the power of un-actualized Omnipotential.

Terrence Deacon has coined a new term for non-existence. He uses "absence" & "absential" to refer to a state that has not-yet been realized or actualized. It is especially apt for describing human intentions. His definition of causal non-existence does not specifically refer to a god, but you can see the resemblance in a deity who exists in some sense, but is not physically there or anywhere.

Causal Absence also has physical implications in "strange attractors" of chaos & fractals, and for the "great attractor" out in the cosmos, yet there is nothing there. Even the physical notion of Entropy seems to be pointing to a state of nothingness in the future, toward which all things in the world seem to be "pulled". Are non-existent strings attached to such sink-holes in reality? :wink:

Constitutive absence: A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

Richard Dawkins will often say that life exhibits 'apparent design'. He obviously does this to defray the age-old cliche of the 'grand designer'. But design in nature is easy to discern and to represent graphically: — Wayfarer

FWIW, I think of Evolution as bottom-up design, by contrast with the Genesis story of top-down design. From that pragmatic perspective, the world is designing itself (self-organizing), just as a computer program begins with a general definition of the desired answer, and then proceeds to calculate & construct a more specific answer. But a bottom-up question must be open-ended, as in "what would happen if . . ." So, it seems as-if the material world is following inherent laws (operating system) to calculate the best possible answer to some ultimate question (unknown to us). Hence, each form produced gives the appearance of being intentionally designed to fit its niche in the ecology. :smile:


In evolutionary computation, the computer creates a population of potential solutions to a problem. These are often random solutions, so they are unlikely to solve the problem being tackled or even come close. But some will be slightly better than others. The computer can discard the worst solutions, retain the better ones and use them to “breed” more potential solutions. Parts of different solutions will be combined (this is often called “crossover”) to create a new generation of solutions that can then be tested and the process begins again.
https://theconversation.com/evolutionary-computation-has-been-promising-self-programming-machines-for-60-years-so-where-are-they-91872

" So simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Darwin

In most films on the simulation theory the real is depicted as less glamorous, more drab than the simulation itself. — Agent Smith

That may be why humans have always imagined that there must be something better, something more, than this "vale of tears". Our advanced animal brains are not limited to the here & now, but can create alternative possible worlds, such as Plato's Ideal, and the Christian Heaven, or somewhat more mundane, a Garden of Eden, where grass-fed lions lay-down with their fellow vegetarian lambs. :joke:

A small defensive word in favor of the scientist... Quantum mechanics is the same small hard ball approach. — Hillary

I wasn't denigrating quantum scientists. They're doing the best they can with the counter-intuitive feedback they get from sub-atomic experiments. Since such concepts as "Superposition" and "Wave-Particle Duality" don't make sense to our classically-trained brains, the pioneers of Weird Science were forced to resort to conventional physical metaphors, that made them seem somewhat less meta-physical, but still quite strange. In my thesis, I encapsulate those paradoxical dualities in the coined term "BothAnd", as illustrated in the Yin-Yang symbol.

"This picture of quantum mechanics is said to be ontic, from 'ontology' . . . . the alternative view is that the wavefunction is epistemic . . . . our state of knowledge".
____Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird

It could even be argued that the wavefunction constitutes space. It's the notion of the particle being a point that is problematic. — Hillary

I don't know if the wavefunction "constitutes space", but it potentially fills all of space, until forced to "collapse" to a specific location. Even the math of Schrodinger's Equation is weird, in that it requires "imaginary numbers, which is not something that has a physical meaning". (ibid) Since the physical foundation of our reality can only be described in mathematical terms, it fits neatly into my thesis that everything in the world is a form of Information (the potential to enform, both physically and mentally). :smile:

So, if mind is part of matter, can there even be a reality independent of mind? — Hillary

The "correct" answer to that question depends on how you look at it. Just as Einstein was forced by the facts to conclude that macro (space-time) reality is relative, it now seems that quantum reality is also relative to the observer. If you look within, your world-model is integral with your-self, but it you look without, it seems independent of your mind. :nerd:

From a Wittgensteinian standpoint there's no essence to either illusions/simulations or reality that could aid us in telling them apart. — Agent Smith

Actually, there is an "essence" underlying perceived reality : I call it "Information". Unfortunately, materialist scientists have ruthlessly dissected reality looking for its fundamental substance. The problem is that they imagined that substance as tiny balls of hard stuff. But eventually, Quantum researchers have been mystified to find that the foundation of material reality is mushy Mathematics (Fields of intangible potential ; invisible WaveForms ; mind-stuff). Their "substance" is essentially the Information necessary to describe the statistical probability of their physical existence at a particular place & time. So, it seems that Reality is based on illusory gambler's odds.

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine (149) has an article that mentions Bostrom's "simulation hypothesis". His issue is to know whether there is "a mind-independent reality". And Nozick's similar Experience Machine thought-experiment concluded that a convincing simulation of Reality would "prevent us from grasping any deeper reality". So it seems that, for all practical purposes, Reality is what you experience : the information you take-into your mind, from which to build a model of the source of those incoming bits of experience. However, speaking for most of us, Nozick said, "we want to have a genuine relationship with reality, not live a fictional life that only feels real. (a la Matrix). "This means that for many people there must be something --- perhaps reality itself -- that is valuable in addition to the feels of experience".

I suppose it's that feeling of incompleteness & imperfection in the perceived world, that caused ancient philosophers (e.g. Plato) to propose an Ideal World, of which our mundane Reality is merely a simulation. Perhaps, the felt need for "something more" is what allows the majority of people to imagine (and believe) in super-gods & heavenly homes, where Reality is closer to Ideality. So, how can we tell them apart : the mind-model of Reality from the unknown real-Reality? Does it really make any difference? Obviously, some people feel strongly that it does. Which is why Morpheus, and his crew, chose to live in a hadean underworld, instead of the "normal" matrix simulation. If only we-in-the-normal-world had magic pills, so we could tell them apart. :cool:

Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. For example if I believe a delicious cheesy, tomato and dough based circle exists then pizza becomes a thing. — Benj96

What-you-believe doesn't create Reality, but Ideality. Yet, for subjective personal purposes, what-you-believe (your world model) is your Reality. The Matrix movie is a good metaphorical illustration of the principle that Reality is what you think it is. Of course, some of us think we're too smart to fall for the old smoke & mirrors trick. But professional magicians, who know how most tricks work, and are inherently skeptical of "real" magic, can be fooled by slick illusions. Such mis-led beliefs are manifest to the mind, not to the eyes. Belief is bliss. :joke:

Matrix Reality Simulation :
Cypher : You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
[Takes a bite of steak]
Cypher : Ignorance is bliss.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/characters/nm0001592

Fool the magician :
https://www.finchmagician.com/magic/who-has-fooled-penn-and-teller

Manifest : 1. clear or obvious to the eye or mind.

Better to be a little troll than a giant Panner! — Hillary

Ha! 180 proof calling you a "troll" is like invader Vlad Putin calling defender Volo Zelensky a NAZI. :joke:

Panner - Urban Dictionary
Someone who is relatively big or fat but thinks and acts like he or she is buff or of average weight constantly talking about it.
https://www.urbandictionary.com ›

your EnformActionism is, to my reckoning, what religion will look like in the distant future (say a 100 to a 1000 years from now). It blends old ideas with new ones, in the most elegant of ways I might add. Moreover, it's got a little bit of everything in it (eclectic/mashup/remix)! — Agent Smith

I doubt that anything like the reason & science-based Enformationism worldview will ever become a popular religion. For one thing, it's too broad & general. Yet, it works as an intellectual-philosophical attitude toward the ("stranger in a strange land") world we find ourselves trapped in (Heidegger :"thrownness"). But, a popular religion requires an emotional commitment, based on faith & hope for something better than the current imperfect world of pain & suffering. Some New Agers seem to feel a connection to something "bigger than us", as in Paganism & Panpsychism & Tat Tvam Asi ("thou art that"). And some may mistake Enformationism as a love-is-all-you-need New Age religious philosophy. But for me, it's merely a way to make sense of the mysteries (Why) that remain after materialistic Science has done all it can to reveal How the world works. :nerd:

PS___The G*D that I envision is not omnibenevolent to human creatures, but simply an impartial Observer watching the Game of Life unfold, as the players struggle to survive and to score points for their team. I haven't been able to work-out any scheme of Salvation or Deliverance, except in the hypothetical possibility of Re-Enforming (reincarnation), which recycles the Data of which I am made. But the Un-Known On-Looker hasn't revealed His/Her plans for me after the game is over. Nevertheless, we can always hope for the best. And try to win for The Team (humanity ; ecology, etc), not for the Spectator, who roots for both sides (Good & Evil).

PPS___My philosophical god-model is a form of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. Some have tried & failed to make a viable religion of such an abstract & dispassionate concept.


Thrownness :
Geworfenheit—a kind of alienation that human beings struggle against, and that leaves a paradoxical opening for freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness
"Into this world we're thrown /
Like a dog without a bone"
Riders on the Storm The Doors

Deism :
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
___Google

You know, I've been thinking (like never before in my life)...the gap between us and God could be as big or even bigger than the gap between us and animals stones! That could be one of the reasons He very rarely intervenes, despite our earnest prayers, in the affairs of humans (we're not even alive to Him). — Agent Smith

Paradoxically, G*D (Programmer ; Cause ; Source) is both "wholly-other" and "all-encompassing". In the sense of being unbounded by space & time, G*D is in a completely different ontological category from the creatures bound to live within the constraints of an imperfect, but evolving, physical world. However, in the Enformationism thesis, we humans are integral parts of the Whole System, in a concept similar to PanPsychism. Metaphorically, we are all ideas in the Mind of G*D.

So, in an Ideal sense, G*D is US --- we are real forms of the ideal Form, we are chips off the old BEING. According to PanDeism (all is god), G*D, whose substance is EnFormAction (energy ; power to cause change, to create), converted some of His/Her metaphysical substance (ideas ; mind) into physical substance (matter). Moreover, PanEnDeism (all in god), is based on the notion that we creatures are integral parts of the ultimate Whole. But, if you are uncomfortable with overtly religious god-models, you could simply say that we are the offspring of Mother Nature.

Presumably, the Creator/Programmer knows everything we know, and feels all that we feel. We are G*D experiencing what it's like to be finite & time-bound. Some have said that we creatures are how an Ideal G*D experiences Reality. When we suffer, G*D suffers, and when we exult, G*D is elated. Unfortunately, this is all hypothetical from our narrow perspective inside the system. But, at least, it gives us some reason to feel a philosophical kinship with our silent & remote Creator, who doesn't intervene but conjoins. Some religious believers express that notion of oneness in various metaphors, such as the Footprints In The Sand poem. You may not go quite that far, but as a philosophical worldview, it's at least a positive take on the human experience, as representatives of G*D in the world. Which aspect do you express : the Divine or the Satanic? :cool:


Wholly Other :
The term “wholly other” is used in Christian theology to describe the difference between God and everything else.
https://carm.org/dictionary/wholly-other/

Footprints in the Sand :
https://www.onlythebible.com/Poems/Footprints-in-the-Sand-Poem.html

Panendeism :
http://www.supra-id.org/panendeism

God becomes the universe :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe

Pretty much true, but it's more correct to say: "we're not godly enough to Him" — SpaceDweller
Let's see what Gnomon has to say. — Agent Smith

No. That's a Calvinist Christian notion of "Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God", who sees us as loathsome insects fit only to be burned. https://wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch03_03.htm
The Creator of an imperfect, but evolving world, couldn't reasonably expect perfection from fallible creatures in an imperfect immature world. So we can only make the best use of whatever messy situation we find ourselves in. My god-model is more like the one expressed in the poem below. :smile:

Desiderata :
. . . . . . Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.
https://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/desiderata.htm

This generates a kinda sorta paradox where a fool (computer) beats a sage (a person, relatively speaking that is). — Agent Smith

Actually, the first so-called "computers" were women mathematicians. And their primary advantage over their male competitors was that they were able to sit still and focus on numbers for hours on end. Meanwhile, the men would get restless, their minds would wander, and they were made to look like fools by the very females. who were not supposed to be "good with numbers". Unfortunately, for those number-crunching gals, the digital computer is even more focused & relentless. But dumb! If they divided by zero, they would keep-on crunching until kingdom come, or the machine burst into flames, whichever came first. :joke:

https://www.history.com/news/human-computers-women-at-nasa

Isn't a computer Go world champion? — Hillary

Yes. But the human mind evolved for quick back-of-the-envelope solutions to pattern-recognition problems : tiger or bush? The computer was developed & dedicated specifically for maze-running expertise. Just think how dumb humans will feel when Quantum AI learns to play war games like SkyNet. :smile:

Google AI defeats human Go champion :
The types of intelligence exhibited by machines that are good at playing games are seen as very narrow. While they may produce algorithms that are useful in other fields, few think they are close to the all-purpose problem solving abilities of humans that can come up with good solutions to almost any problem they encounter.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40042581

However, pure memory seems adequate to appear intelligent. You could, for instance, memorize every question and their answers and pass yourself off as a genius, but are you? — Agent Smith

Yes. That's how AI chess players beat humans : they have instant access to thousands of historical games and situational plays. The only thing that keeps humans in the game today is creativity : to do what hasn't been done before, hence is not yet in memory. :smile:

That's the power of memory.
That's the power of pattern recognition.. — Agent Smith

Memory is just data storage. Pattern recognition is the beginning of cognition : knowing, consciousness. Pattern recognition sees the invisible (meaningful) links between isolated bits of information. Human intelligence is far ahead of AI in its ability to do more than just mimic. Plus the human mind uses a variety of cognitive processes -- beyond pure Logic (e.g. emotional & visceral & muscle memory) -- to add nuance to sensation. :brow:

Ie ie! Yokoso!
You're welcome.

Is it then reasonable to conclude that ethics wasn't top on the list of God's priorities?
A more interesting question is, is this world, as Leibniz believed, the best of all possible worlds? A scientific proof of that would look like this: Given carbon-based life like ours, the other parameters of our universe that make life and goodness possible are such that they also permit death and evil. The question can be reformulated for dystheism also. — Agent Smith

Yes. Ethics is concerned with relationships between people, not between G*D & Man. As I see it, G*D is not Fair-to-me, but Neutral-to-all. For most people, fairness is judged from a personal & subjective perspective. But for the impersonal & objective Programmer of Evolution, variations between "good & bad" are inherent & necessary in the Hegelian Dialectic. The heuristic (trial & error) Evolutionary Algorithm searches for "fitness to an ultimate purpose", not for "fairness to the individual players" in the game. In the game of Evolution there are winners & losers, but the rule-maker is only concerned with the final outcome.

Personally, my life has been mostly good, so I don't think in terms of Dystheism. Apparently, the game is setup with rules (natural laws) that apply equally to all players. So, in that sense, the game is fair. And it's up to each player to make the best of his own talents & situations. Unfortunately, some are born without talent (advantages) and into untenable circumstances. That may seem unfair, but human culture is able to counter-balance the situation with such innovations as Charity. That's why I think of the evolving world, as an experiment in Free Will, to see if its agents are able to learn how to act morally & ethically. Regarding the final score, I assume that it will be satisfactory for the Programmer. But we'll just have to wait & see if, after The End (the Totality), the game is reset and started all over again, with a score of zero to zero. In any case, a Dystopian worldview only hurts the viewer. :smile:

PS___Best World for whom? Certainly not for me. But it's somewhere in the middle. Presumably, it will turn-out OK for the Creator's purposes. Humans can only dream of Utopias, but G*D can make it happen . . . eventually. If Free Will is the point of the game, it will take time to let it develop from top-down Natural Laws to inter-personal Cultural Laws.


Evolutionary Algorithm :
There is a problem to be solved, and the solution is conceived to lie somewhere in a space of possible candidate solutions – the search space. The evolutionary algorithm searches for good solutions in the search space using this typical structure:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/evolutionary-algorithm

Hegelian system :
Hegel's grand idea is "totality" which preserves within it each of the ideas or stages that it has overcome or subsumed. Overcoming or subsuming is a developmental process made up of "moments" (stages or phases).
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm

Tanquam ex ungue leonem (We recognize the lion by his claw). — Johann Bernoulli (said of Isaac Newton after Newton sent him a solution for the brachiostochrone problem)

An old saying is that "you can know the artist by his art". Likewise, you can know the Creator by the nature of his Creation. So, we can infer some characteristics of the Programmer by looking into the features of the Program (e.g. evolution). Some describe G*D as perfect Goodness. Others think that G*D is a "respecter of persons". But homo sapiens is a late development in evolution, and we don't get special treatment from Nature.

Therefore, since Evolution is neither Good nor Evil, but a bit of both, I assume the Cause of our existence was Neutral (i.e. BothAnd). Hence, it's only from the biased human perspective that whatever happens is judged by how it affects me & mine. What we call good & evil could be interpreted as merely necessary variations on the Hegelian (good/evil ; positive/negative) path to the ultimate output. So, humanity may seem be the current high-point of evolution, but in the-long-run we might be just one more step on the ladder to the final program output (e.g. Omega Point -- whatever that might be). :cool:

A computerchip crammed with usable information weight a fraction more than an empty chip, but this doesn't mean that information can be weighed. — Hillary

Don't take that scientist's loose talk about Information having Mass too literally. He's thinking of Information as a "state of Matter". Instead, I view Matter as a form of Information. That's because Information (e.g. mathematical ratios) seems to be fundamental to physical and meta-physical reality.

Raw unformed Information is like a statistical Probability, all Potential nothing Actual. But as Pure Information changes forms, from weightless Mind-stuff, to statistical Potential, to Energy, to Matter, it becomes more physical and more massive. For example at light-speed, a Photon (pure potential energy) has no mass, but as it slows down, it gains mass, until it eventually becomes Matter. (E=MC^2). :nerd:

Could information be the fundamental "stuff" of the universe? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

My understanding of your Enformationism Thesis is basically this: As far as we, h. sapiens, and also other beings with more or less the same level of intelligence, are concerned, information is key to building a universe. Think computer simulations - information (on how to create a universe like ours) is prior to the (simulated) universe itself.
The next obvious question is, who is/are the programmer(s) [god(s)]? Someone/something must have used the information required to construct a universe, ours; this one maybe one among many others (multiverse). — Agent Smith

Yes. Quantum scientists & Cosmologists (mathematical theorists, not empirical pragmatists) are coming to the conclusion that invisible-intangible Information (mathematical ratios between 1s & 0s) is the essence of material reality. Based on that axiomatic assumption, some have postulated a Mathematical Universe, or a Cosmic Computer Simulation. But my layman's thesis is a bit more down-to-earth. For personal & philosophical purposes, I assume that our temporary & contingent world was created in the Big Bang, and that the creative process continues to this day. It seems to be progressing in complexity (e.g intelligence), and heading toward some unknowable destination, that some call "Omega Point".

The First Cause/Creation concept implies that the BB was not an astronomically unlikely accident, but an intentional construct. So, I imagine that the Cause was like a Computer Programmer, who embedded an evolutionary algorithm into the mother-board of the BB Singularity, then pressed the "Enter" button. Voila! the material world is the result of ciphering objects & actions from the Laws & Algorithms. It's a neat theory, but as a being limited to space-time, I have no way of gaining direct knowledge of anything that "existed" before the beginning of Time : i.e. Eternity.

Therefore, I can't claim to have any privileged knowledge of the presumed Programmer, or of any other 'verses that might be out there in the mysterious Great Beyond. However, bowing to Ockham's Razor, I don't "multiply entities". So, I think of the Ultimate Source, not as people or things, but as a universal Principle of Existence, that I label, "BEING".

Note -- The initial Singularity is often compared to a Black Hole, which is a repository of Information. But in reverse : the Information comes out of it, spewing stars & planets into empty space.

The "Enformation Thesis"? — Hillary

Enformationism is my personal worldview, based on 21st century Quantum & Information theories. Scientists are beginning to conclude that shape-shifting Information (mind-matter-energy) is the fundamental element of the real world. So, I have concluded that, logically, there must a Cosmic Mind or Programmer to set-up the creative progressive program that we call "Evolution". However, it's neither a Scientific model, nor a Religious myth, but merely serves as a Philosophical perspective on the world "in which we live and move and have our being". I don't have any privileged knowledge of the Enformer/Programmer, so I resort to the use of various metaphors, instead the usual G*D concept, to refer to the ultimate source of our world (e.g. BEING -- the power to exist). :smile:

PS___If the notion of invisible Information, as both the energy and the matter of reality, is hard to wrap your mind around, check-out Spinoza's theory of "Single Substance" = Nature = God.

Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of EnFormAction is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our temporary world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite First Cause is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

There's no nonexistence, just different kinds of existence. I think Meinong of Meinong's jungle fame thought along the same lines. — Agent Smith

I just Googled "Meinong's Jungle", and found that his view of Nominal vs Phenomenal existence was similar to my own assumption in the Enformationism Thesis. Phenomenal reality is what we know via the 5 senses. However, we also give names to abstract concepts (e.g. metaphors ; symbols) that exist only in the mind, and sometimes treat them as-if they were real things. But Materialists & Nominalists dismiss such imaginary "objects" (e.g. Unicorns & Pegasus) as non-sense. Ironically, that view would ignore most of what makes humans different from animals : imagination & projection into the not-yet-real future. Yes, those ideal "objects" even include popular religious figures and Marvel super-heroes.

In the Enformationism thesis, I treat Ideas (mental objects) as-if they have some kind of meaningful & useful, but non-physical existence. Literally, they don't "matter", but they do signify. That assumption is based on the science of Information (knowledge), which is essentially meta-physical, but also exists in various physical forms. [see below] Since Einstein, we have known that Matter (Mass) & Energy are interchangeable, and more recently that physical Energy & abstract Information are different forms of the same Rational Potential. That Ideal "kind of existence" is what Plato's Idealism referred to as "Forms". Their way-of-being is not Actual & Physical, but Potential & Meta-Physical. For humans, especially philosophers, ideas are just as important as food & shelter.

Unfortunately, the Materialists & Physicalists & Nominalists on this forum, object to my use of an ancient Theological term, "Metaphysics", which to them implies that ghosts, spirits & souls are to be treated as Real things. Instead, my intention is merely to treat those imaginary objects-of-thought as worthy of philosophical consideration. Presumably, most animals are limited to sensing only things that have physical phenomenal existence. But humans have a sixth sense that can conceive & simulate & manipulate unreal ideas & symbols, as-if they real. And the result is often what we call "creativity". And that includes religious metaphors & analogies, that served human philosophical purposes long before the advent of Empirical Phenomenal Science. :nerd:


Meinong, an Austrian philosopher active at the turn of the 20th century, believed that since non-existent things could apparently be referred to, they must have some sort of being, which he termed sosein ("being so") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong%27s_jungle

In metaphysics, nominalism is the view that universals and abstract objects do not actually exist other than being merely names or labels. ___Wiki

Phenominalism : the doctrine that human knowledge is confined to or founded on the realities or appearances presented to the senses.

Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle. This would mean that every bit of information has a finite and quantifiable mass.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
Note --- In my thesis, I treat abstract Information as essential & fundamental, and its various physical forms as superficial & accessory. In other words, Ideal is prior to Real, as Plato assumed.

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Did you know, I'm sure you do, that mathematically speaking, everything reduces to points, lines, curves, each one of these translatable into an equation? In other words, if you want to know what Plato's world of forms looks like, go to bed with the Queen of the sciences (mathematics). — Agent Smith

Yes. Some ancient philosophers (Pythagoras) and modern Physicists (Mario Livio) have imagined G*D metaphorically as a Divine Mathematician. My own metaphor, based on the Enformationism thesis, is that G*D is the Cosmic Programmer. These are not the kind of deities that you would worship, as a Tyrannical Heavenly Despot. Yet you have no choice but to obey His/Her Natural Laws. Fortunately, the Math Wizard has provided enough uncertainty in Nature, for humans to take advantage of the freedom to devise workarounds that result in Culture : nature modified to suit the special needs of big-brain bi-peds without fur & claws & fangs. :smile:

PS__Plato's Forms may be imagined as logical algorithms, mathematical equations, computer programs, or as musical scores.

God is a Mathematician :
Math sounds a lot like the attributes of God—eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent. According to theoretical physicist Michio Koku, “The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God.“
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/god-is-a-mathematician

I like the way you make ideals another type of being. It's close to what I said once in another thread. There's no nonexistence, just different kinds of existence. I think Meinong of Meinong's jungle fame thought along the same lines. On this view it's wrong to say God, or anything else for that matter, doesn't exist. God exists but not in the same way as (say) a rock! Wordplay? — Agent Smith

Of course, it's wordplay. But it's also Idea-play. That's what humans do. Those who deny Idealism, are repudiating Humanism. What distinguishes humans from animals? Mostly, it's the ability to convert sensory impressions into the communicatable concepts we call "Words" & "Ideas". We can then play-around with those "Memes" to construct worldviews that are more-than just sensory appearances. Those imaginary models of the world are what we label "Ideals" ; mental replicas of reality with improvements. They go beyond as-is Reality into as-if Ideality. And the positive result of that reasoning from IS to IF is what we call "Creativity". Of course, some creative ideas fall short of feasibility : e.g. Elon Musk says he wants to buy CocaCola, so he can put the Cocaine back in. I hope he's pulling-the-leg of Twitter twits.

Ironically, adamant philosophical Realists dismiss the practicality of the unrealistic mental tool that makes Philosophy possible : the ability to abstract the essence of specific concrete (real) things into general & universal (ideal) principles, which exist only in the un-real realm of Ideality. World-dominating human culture is the practical product of the homo sapiens ability to Idealize mundane Reality into Utopias & Sky Castles, that seldom become real, but do give us an advantage over the animals, who just make-do with what Nature provides -- humans make-believe. Without our talent for improving upon Nature, we would still be shivering cave-dwellers without fangs & claws. The Garden of Eden does not exist in the past, but only in the future world of Ideality. :smile:


Ideality :
* In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call "Reality" consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. "To measure" is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A traditional name for that fertile field is G*D. But you can call it the Enformation Field, if you like.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Interesting points! Intuition as opposed to logic and that intriguing way of defining God as existence itself. — Agent Smith

Modern philosophers tend to distrust Intuition, as a hasty & emotional instead of methodical & rational way of knowing. But Intuition is fundamental, subjective, and personal, hence it makes the strongest case for belief. Only after those intuitive embryos-of-thought are established can the rational faculties analyze them to select the ones that conform to logical structures, and that can survive the gauntlet of objective social criticism. However, even those ideas that are strong enough to become firm beliefs, are based on limited information. Which is why Bayesian inference was developed, to update our provisional beliefs with additional evidence. Bayes whittled normal human logic, based on conventional concepts (words), down to a mathematical (statistical) analysis of probability. But that bare-bones abstract result may lack the emotional impact of visceral Intuition as the foundation of faith.

Since I have concluded, intuitively & logically, that our world (our reality ; our existence) is highly improbable, given that its fundamental process is Entropy -- inevitably leading to death & disappearance -- the necessity for an exogenous causal force seems undeniable. Plato & Aristotle referred to that logically essential force as the "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover". But they seemed to assume that the Causal Principle of our existence must also lie outside the space-time devolution from Order (Logos) to Disorder (Chaos). In other words it must exist eternally, as Absolute Potential for the creation of Actual Reality from Possible Ideality. Plato also used the term "Chaos" (disorder) to describe that eternal resource of potential stuff. But he didn't mean it was chaotic in the modern sense, but merely that it was unformed potential (like malleable clay) that could be molded into enformed things & organisms.

Those ancient philosophers also spoke of "Being & Becoming". With that in mind, I think of our evolving space-time universe as Becoming, and the timeless power-to-exist-physically as absolute Being. Or, as others spoke of the same ultimate source of existence : "the ground of being". Therefore, as an alternative to the conventional religious label for that enigmatic eternal unknowable omnipotent Cause-of-all-effects, I sometimes refer to it simply as "BEING". :nerd:


BEING :
* In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw man
"All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy." — Nickolasgaspar — Philosophim

When our calm rational conversations become frictional, it's usually due to some prejudicial unstated presumption. And I think you have hit upon one here. The wet-blanket dismissive label, "Pseudo-philosophy", eliminates a whole universe of possible topics for rational discourse. Hence, channeling the dialogue into a narrow canyon for ambush by the forces of "true-philosophy". Fortunately, you didn't take the bait, to follow the feint. :cool:

Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence. — Philosophim

I agree. That's why I refer to the philosophical Principle of First Cause or Necessary Being by various alternative names, including "BEING". But most people would equate those names with their own notion of "God". Which is why, for a while I spelled it "G*D", in order to indicate that it's not your preacher's notion of deity. Instead, it's what Blaise Pascal dismissively called "the god of the philosophers". Others call it simply "the god of Reason". That's what's left when you strip Religion of its traditional mythology & social regulations & emotional commitments. The power-to-exist is essential to living beings & non-living things, and is fundamental to philosophical discourse. It's the unstated premise of every assertion about what-is. So, I try to deal with the elephant-in-the-room head-on, instead of pretending it doesn't "exist" in conventional reality. :joke:

Starting Philosophic Problem :
One of the most fundamental problems of philosophy is related with the most meaningful philosophic notions, that is, with the categories of "being" and "non-being".
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Onto/OntoSolo.htm

BEING :
* In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
* Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

X exists then X is detectable — Agent Smith

This premise presumes physical existence, hence knowable via the 5 senses.

But most modern god-concepts deny that premise. Hence knowable only via the 6th sense of Reasoning or Intuition. So, the premise is prejudicial to most modern god-definitions.

One alternative premise is that "god is existence", the Necessary Being.
But how do you detect "necessity"? By physical or intuitive or logical processes? :smile:

PS__Apparently, most god-believers trust their Intuition more than their Reason. But philosophers seem less reliant on intuition, so require some Objective evidence to supplement their Rational deductions.

Yes. The point is that I see no philosophical argument at this time that can argue for God's logical necessity anymore. Feel free to try, but for the one's I am familiar with, they are all negated by the argument I've made. — Philosophim

The Catholic Scholastics were arguing in favor of their bible-god : paradoxically, both a timeless abstract concept, and a historical personality acting in space-time. But Plato & Aristotle were reasoning to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being in order to explain the existence of all contingent & dependent beings. It was a Logical argument, not a scientific demonstration. So, the later expansion of human scientific knowledge did not answer the philosophical question of "why something instead of nothing". The modern Big Bang theory has given substance to what was just an intuition in ancient times : the contingency (dependence) of our space-time existence on a priori causation.

Moreover, the definition of "existence" is different for Scientists (physical observation) and Philosophers (meta-physical prerequisite). The verb "to be" refers to a future state that follows from "becoming". So, the Necessary Being is supposed to be the meta-physical Cause of becoming into physical being. It's a tricky distinction that would only appeal to speculative philosophers, and not to pragmatic scientists. Which is why our modern knowledge of physical reality still does not "negate" the ancient intuition that a First Cause is necessary to explain the observed chain of causation in which new forms always emerge from old forms. For Plato, his ultimate Form is not an actual thing, but the Potential for all things.

Plato & Aristotle did not believe in magic or serendipity, so they reasoned that human existence was not due to Chance or Accident, but to a pre-existing Cause. They didn't refer to that dynamic causal power as "god" though, because the gods of their time were merely super-humans with limited powers. Instead, they used more abstract terms, such as "Form", or "Logos" or "First Cause", or "Potential" to describe concepts that are beyond human experience, but amenable to human reasoning & imagination. Their logical-god was not Real, but Ideal; not Actual but Potential. :smile:


Entelechy : realization of potential

Contingency : A possibility; something which may or may not happen ; not necessary

Potential & Actual :
These concepts, in modified forms, remained very important into the Middle Ages, influencing the development of medieval theology in several ways. In modern times the dichotomy has gradually lost importance, as understandings of nature and deity have changed. However the terminology has also been adapted to new uses, as is most obvious in words like energy and dynamic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality#Entelecheia_in_modern_philosophy_and_biology
Note -- Physicists assume that Energy (causal power) has always existed, of necessity.

Necessary Being :
Many have thought that if God exists necessarily, there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, or that if there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, God exists necessarily. But both claims are false. Some have used philosophical views of the nature of necessity – for example, that all necessity is conventional, a matter of how we choose to use words – to challenge God’s necessary existence. But the theories which best support these challenges have fallen from favour, and in fact, even if one accepts the theories, the challenges fail.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/necessary-being/v-1
Note -- Since Plato & Aristotle seem to have invented the notion of Logical Necessity, it was not a convention for them. But their definitions have since become conventional for philosophers, along with many other fundamental concepts of Inductive & Deductive reasoning. They are now conventional, because they are necessary for philosophical purposes.

I suppose you're on target. There are some systems that the moment you dissect/disassemble them they immediately stop being what they actually are. Life is a classic example: A cell is alive, as soon as you break it down into its parts like in a centrifuge, it dies. If so, did we really study/understand the cell? — Agent Smith

Holism is an ancient philosophical notion (e.g. Taoism). But, my eyes were opened to the modern concept of Holism --- as an Evolutionary Principle and a causal force (phase change) in the real world --- by the 1926 book, Holism and Evolution, by Jan Smuts. Note : NewAge spirituality later mixed ancient & modern versions of Holism into their worldview. However, that same core concept, as applied to physical Science, is what we now know as Systems Theory. For a general philosophical introduction, I highly recommend the Smuts book. I have two hardback copies, would you like to borrow one? :joke:

Holism and Evolution :
Smuts examines the reformed concepts (as of 1926) of space and time (chapter 2), matter (chapter 3), and biology (chapter 4), and concludes that the close approach to each other of the concepts of matter, life, and mind, and the partial overflow of each other's domains, imply that there is a fundamental principle (Holism) of which they are the progressive outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
Kindle format $3 at
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VISSWR6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Systems theory :
A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Other sources : Ludwig von Bertalanffy (General System Theory); Gregory Bateson (Ecology of Mind) ; Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela (Autopoiesis) ; Norbert Wiener (Cybernetics) ; Fritjof Capra (Systems View of Life) ; etc.

Emergence Theory :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

CONCEPTUAL ORGANIC HOLISM versus BLIND MECHANISTIC REDUCTIONISM

What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous? — Haglund

That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. But it mandates an endless regression of Causes, with no answer to the Origin question. Empirical & Pragmatic scientists might be satisfied with such an evasive answer, but Mathematical & Theoretical scientists tend to abhor infinities in their theses.

However, some speculative Philosophers & Cosmologists & Theologians seem comfortable with (or resigned to) Eternal Ellipsis ("God" or "First Cause" or "Multiverse" or "Many Worlds" ; insert your label "here") as a logical answer to ultimate questions about a proximate world. Apparently, for Plato the "First Cause" was an eternal Principle, which served as a stand-in for all those elliptical dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :sad:

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
___Albert Einstein

Cyclic Universe :
these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. — Gnomon
Which is fine. But it cannot be concluded via philosophical argument that such a God is logically necessary any more. — Philosophim

That's a strange assertion coming from "Philosophim" (those who love wisdom?). If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? An "ultimate principle", such as Plato's Logos and Judaism's Singular Deity, is obviously not an empirical observation, but a hypothetical speculation based on the premise that a contingent causal world (subject to dead-end Entropy) must logically have an initial cause. And, in order to explain a finite chain-of-causation, it must have a definite beginning. And that First Cause must be acausal, hence uncreated, or merely a link in an eternal regression of causation. So, what is your "any more" that makes logical evidence un-necessary?

How else could we "evaluate" such a conjecture, except via rational analysis of the deductive process? Plato & Aristotle offered no physical (quanta) evidence to support their proposed fundamental (qualia) "Principle". Basically, all we can say about any such hypothesis (proposed explanation) is that it either makes sense or not ; it's believable or not. However, the "sense" depends on the definition. The OP definitively omits all non-empirical evidence, such as logical inference. So, "case closed" by definition. But most theologians & philosophers would feel discriminated against by such an exclusionary construction of the question. However, if a philosophical First Cause or Eternal Deity is taken as a "principle", it is inherently exempted from scientific proof. Which leaves us two options : evaluate the logic of the principle, or use force to compel agreement to its authority. :nerd:


Logical Necessity :
1. When something is logically necessary, it is true by definition
2. a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds ___Wiki

Monotheism :
Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself ___ https://plato.stanford.edu/plato.stanford.edu

Principle :
Principles are ideas based on scientific rules and laws that are generally accepted by scientists. They are fundamental truths that are the foundation for other studies. Principles are qualitative.
They aren't really rules that can be written down with mathematical symbols. They are more like guiding ideas that scientists use to make predictions and develop new laws. . . .
A law describes an event, but it does not explain why the event happens. Laws describe relationships, specific situations, and conditions. This is different from a principle, which tells us why and how things happen.
https://www.expii.com/t/scientific-principle-definition-examples-10310

PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no?

The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. This means there is nothing different about a God from any other existence. One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative. — Philosophim

Ancient people probably had no concept of an eternal or self-existent First Cause. Their polytheistic gods were merely names for invisible natural features of the world -- weather gods, sun gods, earth gods -- that seemed to control things that people depended upon for their livelihood, and which seemed to behave temperamentally, as-if they were living intelligent agents. Today, we have more control over Nature, hence not so dependent upon those mysterious natural forces.

So, we give them impersonal technical names -- like Energy, Force, Natural Laws -- and rest assured that those labels mean that we understand them. Yet, modern scientists may know more about what causal "Energy" does, but nothing about what it is essentially. For example, Energy is defined as the "ability", or "power" to cause change, but those attributes also pertain to human agents. So, it's easy to see why the ancients pictured their gods in human or animal form.

The Monotheistic notion of deity was a later development in the science-myths of early civilizations. That all-encompassing concept was probably a reaction to philosophical critiques of polytheism, as recorded in the Hebrew & Hindu Scriptures. If the deity is a formless spirit, not in physical form, most of the practical objections, such as "where's the evidence?" could be ignored. In the apocryphal chapter 14 of the book of Daniel, the hero proved empirically that the idol of Baal (Bel) was not actually eating the food offered to him. Yet, Daniel's non-physical god, with no need for food, was immune to such negative evidence. Ironically, his own Hebrew culture's tribal-god fore-runner also demanded food sacrifices. But, the scriptures say He survived a god-competition cook-off, by consuming the offerings to other gods with divine fire.

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. And modern science has nothing to say about such meta-physical (non-physical) existence. So, depending on your assessment of the logical evidence, you can believe it or not. However, there is "another possible alternative". Actually, several possibilities. For example, the First Cause postulated by Plato & Aristotle was not presented as a human, but as an eternal logical principle of causation & organization. As such, the only evidence for that kind of governing principle is logical consistency : e.g. an evolutionary sequence either has a first instance or it is eternal.

The current cosmological model implies that our world is not eternal or self-existent, so it's not its own Cause. Instead, the scientific evidence indicates that the universe is contingent upon some a priori Cause, existing before the Big Bang. You could say that the Singularity itself is the Prime Cause of space-time, hence a creator God. But, it's just an abstract mathematical concept, so is it worthy of the label "god". Or should we look beyond that dimensionless dot of Potential, for an ultimate timeless-spaceless Creative Cause of our own contingent Existence? :cool:


GOD OF THE DEAD PORTRAYED AS JACKAL MAN (scavenger of dead bodies)

but there's a difference between discussing the philosophical implications of physics, and the kinds of debates going on inside physics, which are pretty well by definition only intelligible to those trained in it. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, I get the impression that some aggressive posters raise such arcane technical questions in an effort to intimidate those outside the esoteric cabal of priests of Physics. Like you, I typically ask them to take-it-outside, as irrelevant (immaterial) to the "philosophical implications" of the topic under discussion. Typically though, they chalk-up that evasion as a triumph of enlightened Science over superstitious Philosophy. I for one, am inclined to allow them this little conceit, if it allows them to declare victory and beat a hasty retreat. :joke:


Sophistry :
A sophist was a teacher in ancient Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Sophists specialized in one or more subject areas, such as philosophy, rhetoric, music, athletics, and mathematics. ___Wiki
Note -- perhaps Philosophy Trolls now specialize in esoteric Physics.

It hasn't always been like this. Newton for example indicated that the reality, or truth of his first law of motion, what we call inertia, is dependent on the Will of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point. Until the Greek Revival / Enlightenment gave scientists the courage to abandon the age-old all-purpose explanation --- that the omniscient-omnipotent-god-concept explains all philosophical mysteries --- most sages & scientists were forced by their ignorance of ultimate causes to postulate a hypothetical First Cause, as a catch-all non-explanation.

However, as bits of physical evidence became woven into understandable theories of local causal systems, such as Evolution & Electro-Magnetism & Thermodynamics, the perceived dependence-on & necessity-for an ultimate Final Cause faded away. And Natural Laws were treated as mere consistent "constants" & "regularities" (necessities??), to be taken for granted, and not explained-away with Metaphysical metaphors.

Ironically, the presumptive triumph of reductive science, Quantum Theory, began to reveal new gaps in our understanding of fundamental reality. The search for a foundational Atom, seems to have found no physical bottom to ground our theories on. Instead, "quantum weirdness" appears to be pointing at ethereal "Mind Stuff" as the essential element of reality.

As a result, some secular non-religious scientists are beginning to take seriously such antique notions as Panpsychism, and futuristic sci-fi theories like a Mathematical Universe. But the implication of a Universal Mind to generate & contain the Mind-Stuff (information) is reminiscent of the ancient postulations of Logos and Deus. :cool:

Quantum weirdness goes deeper: It implies that the logical foundations of classical science are violated in the quantum realm; and it opens up a glimpse of an unfamiliar and perhaps older aspect of nature that some call the implicate universe.
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/WritingScience/Ferris.htm
Note -- "Implicate" means implicit or inferred intentional meaning

Mind-Stuff :
(Originally) supposed particles of mental substance in combinations which are perceived as matter; (in later use also) any rudimentary abstract substance from which ideas, images, etc., can be formed.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/mind-stuff
Note -- that "abstract substance" is what I call Generic Information and EnFormAction.

Natural Laws are not explanations :
"Even William Paley, 17th century author of Natural Theology, “the gospel according to anthropomorphic design”, quibbled over some of the current terminology. “The idea that postulating ‘laws’ of Nature gave explanations of design, he thought to be a form of mysticism, ‘a mere substitution of words for reason, names for causes’ “ Thus, he nailed the weakness of reductive cosmology : it assumes that a random mechanism without Reason or Purpose could magically evolve creatures that are characterized by both. "
BothAnd Blog, post 116

The Problem with Panpsychism :
In his Scientific American magazine article, science writer John Horgan questions an “ambitious” new theory [Integrated information] to explain how human Consciousness evolved from dumb matter, like atoms, to smart stuff, like brains. Or as he put it, “how does stuff become conscious?” His first introduction to the theory made him skeptical. And part of his doubt was due to the implicit Panpsychism (all is mind) of the theory. That sounds more like a religious or mystical notion than a scientific hypothesis. Ironically, as scientists delve deeper into the post-Shannon Information phenomenon, the more they tend to resort to ancient philosophical concepts to explain the ubiquity and power of the non-stuff that used to be imagined as the content of Minds & Souls. Horgan jumped to the conclusion that “This ancient doctrine holds that consciousness is a property not just of brains but of all matter, like my table and coffee mug”. He probably imagined little atoms chatting among themselves about the latest gossip.
BothAnd Blog, post 115

Isn't the whole made up of (simpler) parts? — Agent Smith

Yes. But the "Whole" is the immaterial "extra" (pattern ; arrangement ; logical structure ; metaphorical "glue") which unifies the physical parts into a system, not the parts themselves. It's the "more-than" which adds special properties of its own. If you try to dissect a whole into parts, it's no longer a whole. That's why Systems Theory was devised for Science, to study complex organizations, without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The difference that makes the difference is organization (logical interrelationships), the bonding of parts into functional organs. A pile of sand washes away with the next wave, but a block of concrete (bonded grains) withstands the forces of entropy. A frog is a living organism, but when you dissect it into separate organs, what you have left is dead parts. :smile:


As nouns the difference between collection and system is that collection is a set of items or amount of material procured or gathered together while system is a collection of organized things;
https://wikidiff.com/collection/system

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. ___Wikipedia

Holism is the idea that various systems should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. ___Wikipedia

Holism :
Philosophy
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. ___Google

"Ironically, Kant's unknowable noumena are the very kind of knowledge that philosophers specialize in : speculation & conjecture into the unknown, and objectively unknowable, mysteries that are not amenable to scientific exploration" — Gnomon

Not at all. The later Kant was completely dismissive of speculative metaphysics. I won't try and explain what is meant by the philosophical term noumenon but it's not a catch-all term for spooky woo-woo. — Wayfarer

Ha! The joke's on him. Kant is now classified as a German Idealist, who trafficked in transcendental notions & a priori concepts. I assume the "metaphysics" he rejected was the same Catholic Scholastic doctrines, that the Logical Positive Realists on this forum ridicule as "spooky woo-woo". His own forays into theoretical reasoning, tried to have it both ways : practical Reason and impractical theorizing. But hay! That's what philosophy is all about. So, the alternative to speculative Metaphysics is empirical Physics. But you have to get your hands dirty doing physical experiments. :wink:

Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics :
Thus, Kant’s criticism of metaphysics simultaneously involves denying the pure use of theoretical reason as an instrument for knowledge of transcendent objects, and defending reason’s ideas as projections or goals that have some significant role to play in the overall project of knowledge acquisition.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

The Leibnizian metaphysics, the object of Kant's attack, is criticized for assuming that the human mind can arrive by pure thought at truths about entities ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Immanuel-Kant/Period-of-the-three-Critiques

Their answer, in essence, is that science doesn't know what natural laws are. — Wayfarer

Yes. Physicists just take Laws & Constants for granted, without further explanation. For pragmatic purposes, it's not necessary to delve into metaphysics, because they don't need to know "why" in order to know "how". Yet, philosophers, and some Cosmologists, don't limit their focus to practical problems. Instead, they feel free to speculate on impractical imaginary adventures in the Great Beyond : beyond the limits of physics, that is. Hence, such unverifiable conjectures as Many Worlds & Eternal Inflation. And Paul Davies impractical venture : The Goldilocks Enigma : Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?

Ironically, the physicist's pragmatic ("just the facts ma'am") attitude is similar to the Buddha's reluctance to ask or answer indeterminate questions. It's not that the scientists don't care about the answers to meta-physical questions (e.g. why?), but perhaps because they fear that they won't like the answers. Both Buddha & Physicists were disgusted with the traditional mis-directed answers of popular religions : "invisible spirits/gods did it". So, they tried to avoid any hints of supernatural (meta-physical) forces at play. :cool:

The unanswered questions :
The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. . . . .
The Buddha said that the seeking the answers to these types of questions will not help one on the spiritual path.
https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

So the conviction that the realm of contingency is the only real realm is the basis of the fundamental confusion (dare we say ignorance) of technocratic culture. — Wayfarer

Before the expanding-cosmos evidence convinced scientists that our universe is not eternal, as presumed --- but contingent upon some mysterious pre-bang law-making & energy-creating force --- it was easy to just assume that Reality is an eternal cycle, with inherent (defacto) unquestionable absolute laws & forces & substances. A story without beginning or end.

Now, they are not so sure, but still resistant to any suggestion that a spooky outside force was involved. That's why I view the Enformationism thesis as a bridge between physics & meta-physics, twixt nature & super-nature. The essential "substance" of material reality is also the essence of mental ideality : merely various forms of the same fundamental malleable stuff. Perhaps, in the age of Information technology, the notion of a pre-BB "enformer" is not quite so spooky. :gasp:

(I suppose this can easily be construed as theist apologetics, but it doesn't have to be. I'm agnostic about the reality of a Biblical God. But there's a broader metaphysical conception that subsumes many different, specific cultural forms.) — Wayfarer

I too am agnostic about anything outside of the Actual contingent realm we know & love. But, as an amateur philosopher, I enjoy speculating in the realm of Potential meta-physical Ideality. It allows me to ask the questions that the Buddha avoided, without falling back into the traditional doctrinal webs of theism and polytheism. I prefer to fall forward into the unknown realm of Possibilities : what might be. :nerd:

It depends on what sense of 'knowing'. This writer says that Kant claims that the noumenal is unknowable - but that both Hegel and Schleiermacher then point out that, even though the noumenal might be unknowable in any objective sense, in another sense, it constitutes our own being, that it constitutes us, as subjects of experience. — Wayfarer

Ironically, Kant's unknowable noumena are the very kind of knowledge that philosophers specialize in : speculation & conjecture into the unknown, and objectively unknowable, mysteries that are not amenable to scientific exploration. That's why only "mad-dogs" & philosophers go out into the sun-less mysteries of the Mind : Consciousness & Subjective Knowing. :smile:

One of the things that occurs to me is how often it is assumed that the phenomenal domain, the vast realm which is subject to investigation by the natural sciences, is, in this sense, the domain of contingent facts. — Wayfarer

Yes. The Big Bang theory caused cosmologists, such as Einstein, to reconsider their presumption that the physical world was eternal, hence unconditional. So some, including Krauss, began to look beyond the BB -- pre-phenomenal domain -- for a First & Final Cause of our contingent universe. But most of those pre-BB causes -- Many Worlds ; Multiverses ; Inflation -- are still assumed to obey the same physical laws as our Real world. So, the question of the (noumenal??) Lawmaker is still open. :cool:

n deep humbleness I dare to give a definition: information is matter being in formation. — Haglund

Yes. Although I would say that Matter is generic Information in a particular formation. Energy & Matter are different forms of general Information (E=MC^2). And the "formation" is called a meaningful pattern of information interrelationships. But "Energy" & "Mass" are mathematical concepts, while "Matter" is a conventional linguistic term to denote whatever has Mass & Intertia.

I just noted that Quora tech guru Victor Toth said, "Energy and mass do have consistent definitions."
“Matter” is a somewhat more poetic term, and its meaning often depends on context." :smile:

What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja? — Agent Smith

Ya, it does. The ultimate simple is not a part (one of many), but the Whole (all-encompassing Unity).
But, a better name for that unpartitioned infinite Potential might be a "holicale" (play on Holism). :joke: