I'm not frustrated, I just think your understanding and use of the word "metaphysics" is too different from mine for us to have a fruitful discussion now. — T Clark

Yes. But such misunderstandings are the fodder for Philosophy. Only in Politics would it lead to retreat or attack.

That's why I suggested that we switch to some alternative words, such as "non-physical". Does a distinction between Physical and Non-physical compute in your Reality? Or do you lump Qualities and Properties together under the heading of Physical? Are such notions Natural or Supernatural (or Artificial) ; are they Real or Ideal, or what? What synonyms of Metaphysical would you prefer? :smile:

PS___See the post by Nickolasgaspar above

Isn't this more than 'Nothing'. Isn't it still a something in some kind of realm as above in that realm's level as tangible to that realm but not to ours? — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but it's a mental something (subjective idea, not objective object). So such abstract universals as G*D or TAO don't fall under the category of physical scientific things. Instead, they are metaphysical philosophical non-things. Knowable, but non-tangible. Holistic all-things, but not reductive things. More than nothing, in the sense that Infinity is more than nothing. :smile:

Thing :
1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

"The Way" is more than the pavement.

I think you and I have taken this as far as we can for now. — T Clark

I'm sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of progress on this perennial philosophical stalemate. But, this topic is labeled "what is metaphysics. yet again". So, I think it's essential that we at least agree on a clear distinction between "Physics" and "Metaphysics". Otherwise, we'll never find any common ground for a rational discussion. And "physical" versus "mental" seems to be the closest to a black & white dichotomy. Of course, in philosophy, the setup is seldom that simple. But, if we can begin there, perhaps we can chip away at any other obstacles to mutual understanding.

I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine, reviewing a book about four "linguistic" philosophers, including Wittgenstein and Heidegger. The reviewer said that they had one thing in common : "the belief that mistaken assumptions about language are the wellsprings of error in philosophy". And I think most dictionary definitions of the term "Metaphysics" mainly reflect medieval Christian theologian usage of that word --- not Aristotle's original intention for his "first philosophy". That's why I contend that most dictionaries simply repeat those "mistaken assumptions" derived from blending Greek philosophy with Christian theology.

The article goes on to quote Heidegger : "we cannot he argues, reduce philosophy's biggest question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?" to any system of knowledge, because it is a question that informs every such question". Note the word "informs". Does it refer to a physical phase change. or to a non-physical transfer of Meaning rather than Matter? That is the distinction underlying my personal definition of "Meta-Physics". Although I like the hyphenated term, for it's symmetrical metaphorical implications, I also sometimes substitute "Non-Physics" in order to avoid the theological baggage of "metaphysics". Do you accept that there are non-physical aspects of the world? If not, this thread will be at an impasse.

I harp on the not-physical implications of "Meta-Physics" in order to distinguish a Philosophical concept from a Scientific topic. Empirical Scientists don't usually concern themselves with abstract concepts, such as Being and Ontology. But posters on this forum often try to place "metaphysics" under the umbrella of physical science, in order to avoid its spiritual implications. Which is why I point-out the second dictionary definition : "abstract theory with no basis in reality." ___Oxford. Can we simply agree that "abstractions" are not Real, but Ideal --- existing only in abstract Minds instead of concrete Brains? :cool:

Abstract and concrete :
In metaphysics, the distinction between abstract and concrete refers to a divide between two types of entities. Many philosophers hold that this difference has fundamental metaphysical significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

I don't believe your understanding that all mental phenomena are considered metaphysical is consistent with any generally accepted definition of the word. — T Clark

I agree. That's why I went back (meta-), beyond medieval theologians, to see what Aristotle was talking about in his second volume. The first volume, Physics, was about physical things (Quanta ; Science), but the second volume, "Metaphysics", was about non-physical concepts (Qualia ; Philosophy), such as abstractions, wisdom, ideas, meanings, attitudes, relationships, primary causes, etc . . .

Yes, I know Aristotle didn't use that term, but when spelled with a hyphen, "Meta-Physics" denotes the practical distinction between material Science and mental Philosophy : that which is beyond the scope of physical examination, but is amenable to rational scrutiny. So, that's how I derived a unique non-dictionary definition of "Meta-Physics" for my Enformationism thesis :cool:


What is metaphysics according to Aristotle? "
Summary Metaphysics. What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotle/section7/

It remains as the physical One; its rearrangements are temporary; it doesn't make new substances; it is ever itself. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like the TAO, or LOGOS, to which I compare my G*D concept. However, like Energy, G*D is not a physical object, but a functional process or flow. It's an "essence" not a physical substance. It's ineffable ; so you can't point to it and say "there it is". It's a holistic pattern of relationships, not an individual thing ; so you can know about it, but not see it. Therefore, as a system, I call it "Meta-Physical", in the sense that it is more than the sum of its physical parts. :smile:

TAO : The Tao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the Universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the Universe balanced.
In all its uses, the Tao is considered to have ineffable qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Since, with no beginning, it ne’er became;
Thus no Alif through Ye: it’s e’er the same. — PoeticUniverse

That's why I distinguish the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS from the space-time bubble of the physical temporal world :
First begat in a Bang, destined to die in a Sigh . . . . . :cool:

Ideas and opinions are not "by definition" metaphysical. — T Clark

Of course, ideas & opinions have a physical substrate, but the neurons themselves are meaningless. So, my comment was directed at the subjective meaning, not the objective container. If ideas were physical, mind-reading might be as simple as an MRI readout, or drinking a brain cocktail. Therefore, by my definition (see below), Ideas are literally non-physical. Brain is an information processor, but Mind is the meaningful output. :nerd:

PS__I just read an article about Arc proteins in the human brain, which are descendants of ancient viruses, and are essential for retention of long-term memories, even though the physical proteins are destroyed after a short "life-cycle". Somehow the memories are passed along to the next generation of Arc protein. Just as viruses are not alive, technically, these lumps of protoplasm are not ideas or memories --- but merely temporary containers for bits of information.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/all-your-memories-are-stored-by-one-weird-ancient-molecule?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Substrate : an underlying substance or layer. That which supports something.

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

IS THIS WHAT A MEMORY LOOKS LIKE ?
https://virtuul.com/news/how-viruses-may-have-shaped-the-human-brain/

There is an objective reality independent of human thought.
Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction.
Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere.
There is no absolute point of view or scale.
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark

Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. But are they "rules" or "laws" governing subjective reality? That's what I thought you meant. :smile:

That's fine for some, but it's not 'God'; it's just the simple basis of the more complex as the Ground of Determination. — PoeticUniverse

Of course. That's the point of the Multiverse hypothesis. Instead of a First Cause, it's a more-of-the-same-forever infinite (no beginning or end) chain-of-causation --- or a cosmic Conga Line of turtles, if you prefer a more concrete image. :wink:

? The one and only basis remains; no regress. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? :chin:

Einstein's discovery of the quantum discreteness of photons proved true, so it was not outlandish. — PoeticUniverse

True. But at the time it sounded unorthodox, hence "outlandish" (alien ; foreign) for the wave-propagation orthodoxy of the day. :smile:

Why No One Believed Einstein :
https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/

We do see the mind-fields, and that is all we ever 'see'; they're as maps made in the brain process of consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? What color is yours? Mine is boring beige. :joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)

"why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?"
___Gnomon

Cool video! So the answer is Be Here Now? Don't worry about what was, or will be. Sufficient unto the day . . . . . . .

How come you are always referencing turtles when the buck clearly stops at my One as the base? — PoeticUniverse

The leap-frogging turtle metaphor applies to the implicit infinite regress when an eternal buck-stopping agent is denied. In religious arguments it's common to be challenged with "so who created your God?". But the question only makes sense if the deity is subject to the limitations of space-time and matter-energy. Most Christians have no problem answering with "my God is eternal and self-existent". But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time.

However, if your hypothetical One is -- like my ALL -- non-physical, then the turtle-cycle would be unnecessary. And that's why my hypothetical God-substitute is defined as "Ideal" instead of "Real", Which in traditional religious terms would be "Spiritual" instead of "Physical". It's my contention that the Jewish concept of "Spirit" was equivalent to the Greek notion of "Ideal". And both seemed to be referring to the mysterious force in Nature that we now call causal "Energy". It's invisible & intangible, and physical only in that it has observable effects on Matter. Infinite Potential covers all possibilities at once, with no need for physical cycles of reproduction or creation. Hence, the First Cause is like an eternal inexhaustible battery of pent-up energy that is loosed upon the world, only when a feedback circuit is made -- a space-time cycle.

As a similar non-physical notion, Einstein surprised many folks when he declared that Gravity was not a real force. Because everybody knew from personal experience that gravity pulls on real bodies with invisible rope. Even worse, his radical theory pictured Gravity as "warped space". Which makes as much sense as "curved nothingness". But pragmatic scientists eventually learned to go along with that blasphemy against Lord Newton. Yet, Alfred was not done with knocking the props out from classical physics. His outlandish ideas opened the door to Quantum Theory, which like quicksand has undermined the ancient Atomic Theory with invisible intangible Mathematical Fields as the fundamental reality of Physics.

Therefore, as a pragmatic idealist, I have learned to accommodate all those radical paradigm shifts, by accepting the view of an increasing number of physicists and cosmologists, that even those fundamental fields consist of nothing but Information. Which is that same "stuff" that used to exist only in metaphysical Minds. And now even the physical Brains that mysteriously generate invisible mind-fields are ultimately composed of, not things per se, but incorporeal relationships between things. In Math, we call those invisible geometric links "ratios". Which ironically are what we "know" only with our rational power of Reason.Thus, I conclude that the "One", the "All", the "First Cause", the "buck-stopper" is simply the Eternal Enformer. :nerd:


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 : ONE, 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Information :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting it via rational inference
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

TWO SIDES OF SAME COIN

You have recognized the multiverse. That accords well. . . .
You have recognized the block multiverse. That is the answer! Accords well with timeless eternalism. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser.

Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS.

That's why I interpret "Block Time" in terms of Aristotelian Potential, the notion of infinite possibility, which requires a trigger (First Cause) to actualize. Potential is not Real, but merely Ideal, until an intentional directional choice causes something specific to actualize. This is not magic, but similar to a physical phase change, such as liquid water to solid ice. The potential for solidity was always there in H2O, but an external trigger causes the change from Possible to Actual. Besides, as you pointed out : "Thus, all possible universes are real in the block multiverse, as timeless and all done, finished, most of them not having life or being outright flops".

The Materialism, Reductionism, Physicalism worldview leaves no role for Philosophy. In which case, this forum is a monumental waste of time, since we typically discuss things that are not things, but possibilities ; not actual or physical, hence unverifiable --- only arguable. Terence Green, in Philosophy Now, regarding A.J. Ayer and Logical Positivism says : "this is philosophy as a barren wasteland --- stripped of all that philosophy had . . . . traditionally been concerned with : why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?". Logical Positivism has no answer for such illogical questions. Logic is about mechanical formal processes, but human Reason is about meaningful Forms (potential desiderata). Again, Green says about scientific Logical Positivism, "it can't deal with statements such as 'God exists'.". :nerd:


Desiderata : something that is needed or wanted. but does not yet exist.

Inert Potential : the voltage of an electric battery is simply a promise of future current. The promise is only fulfilled after some outside force completes the circuit, allowing useful current to flow. Eternal Ideal Potential likewise requires a Cause (intentional choice) to allow it to actualize into reality.

So, 'Nothing' does not challenge 'God', but the necessity of a single, simple base physical substance does, in that it required no creation. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. From your Physicalist perspective, "God" is No-Thing. But in my Enformationism view, G*D is Every-Thing, and is necessarily self-existent. Even a tower-of-turtles multiverse would have to be self-created in order to lay the foundation for the tower *1. :smile:

This physical information, to speak of it in a holistic way that you might like, can operate without a programmer and her problematic regress… — PoeticUniverse

Yes. But in my thesis G*D is both Programmer and Program, both Creator and Creation, both Sculptor and Marble. This is the holistic worldview of PanEnDeism (all in god). And it's only reasonable if ALL is omni-potential Information -- both the power-to-enform and the substance enformed ; both Mind and Matter. Similar to Spinoza's "universal substance", except updated to allow for a Big Bang beginning. :halo:

Panendeism holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time,
https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Panendeism

The Great 'IS' that is the monistic One would already have all possible realities of universes in it in a superposition, as it being Everything since what has no beginning can't have a direction inputted to it.
This is as a multi-verse, — PoeticUniverse

Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition. In Quantum Physics that trigger is a measurement (technically, the decision of what to measure). No-Thing could not make such a fateful choice, but Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds. And that essential "something" is what I call "Teleological Intention" (purpose ; design). Unfortunately, we time-bound creatures don't know the intended End of evolution. So, the term Eutaxiological may be more appropriate than "Teleological". Like the hero in the movie Tron, we don't know how the game will end, but we are motivated to win, i.e. to survive long enough to have an impact on the outcome. :sweat:

Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
Note -- Superposition of a world-creating system can be in all possible states (infinity) and all possible times (eternity) until a non-random intention is chosen. How? In Infinity/Eternity all things are possible. :brow:

Teleological :
Purpose-driven evolution, as opposed to Eutaxiological, meaning simply that evolution must have had a First Cause, even if the Final Cause (purpose) is unknown.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page12.html

Of course, in any universe that creates thinking life, such as in ours, the thinkers would wonder how such an apparently fine-tuned marvel could have happened. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. And here's how that could have happened. :nerd:

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
“mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

*1 Tower of Turtles -- an infinite regress of causation

This is also what doomed Decartes’ distinct mental and physical realms: they couldn’t exchange energy.
The addition of a ‘non physical’ or 'intangible' only enlarges the question to produce a regress. — PoeticUniverse

As usual, your material-mind arguments are reasonable . . . from the classical Physicalism perspective. Through that ground-glass lens, only the physical senses make sense. And that's probably how non-rational animals see their world. Fortunately for reasonable people, theoretical Philosophy, unlike empirical Science, is not limited to the 5 senses (perception) for information (useful knowledge) about the world. Instead, it enlarges the scope of investigation by using the sixth sense of Rational Inference (conception). Only a rational mind can deal with the non-physical mysteries of existence, such as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. Physicalists can't see Consciousness, because they are looking through the transparent lens of Sentience.

By that meta-physical means, we now know how Mental (Information) and Physical (Matter) can exchange energy. And I'm not talking about reductive Shannon Information (digital bits), but holistic Conscious Information (holistic semantic meaning). From that angle, the Mental & Physical realms are distinct philosophical categories, while empirical Science has no category for the Mental aspects of the world. But if Information is indeed fundamental, as some physicists now infer, then Matter & Energy can be reduced to a single universal (monistic) substance : Information -- the power to transform. Pace Descartes *1.

Thus, the modern scope of Quantum & Information physics has been enlarged to encompass both the Mental (non-physical) and Material (physical) aspects of the real world. And to eliminate the need for an infinite regress of physical worlds, to explain how our cosmic domain could be born from an "undefined", hence non-physical, mathematical point of Potential. Pace PU. :nerd:

Property dualism :
It asserts that while mental states are physical in that they are caused by physical states, they are not ontologically reducible to physical states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

Physics + Math = Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Energy is meta-physical Potential :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Information transmission without energy exchange :
We show that it is possible to use a massless field in the vacuum to communicate in such a way that the signal travels arbitrarily slower than the speed of light and such that no energy is transmitted from the sender to the receiver. Instead, the receiver has to supply a signal-dependent amount of work to switch his detector on and off. Because of that, this kind of communication without energy exchange may be called "Quantum Collect Calling".
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3988

In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined . . . . lacking differentiability or analyticity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

*1 Pace is Latin for “in peace,” and in footnotes it means something like “no offense intended” toward a person or source that you are contradicting.

"God" (however you define it) is logically necessary but completely unknown? — SpaceDweller

Yes. Like the Quarks of sub-atomic theory, the First Cause is logically necessary, but known only by rational inference. Some people claim to "know" God directly & personally via meditation or prayer or revelation. But that is a Gnostic form of "knowing" (by faith) instead of the usual knowing by physical experience. Personally, I don't find those alternative methods useful, but if it works for you, who am I to denigrate your subjective knowledge. :cool:

Quarks :
any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.

All is physical. — PoeticUniverse

Physicalism is indeed a fairly common philosophical position among Materialists. But Quantum & Information Theories have undermined the confident assumptions of that outdated Classical worldview. My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter. The "material" element of reality is what we see with our senses, but the "form" is only known via the sixth sense of Reason. Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms). Of course, the quantum foundation of Reality remains under the purview of Physics. But it is so close to nothing that quantum Information theory overlaps with the concerns of Philosophy. Like poets, quantum scientists use concrete metaphors to describe their indescribable abstractions. :nerd:

Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

Quantum Field :
In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientist to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html

Quantum Philosophy :
https://theconversation.com/quantum-philosophy-4-ways-physics-will-challenge-your-reality-150175

In the picture, Socrates is being given hemlock because he spoke too much nonsense about some invisible non physical goings on being so. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death. :cool:

Socrates spent his early years studying astronomy, geometry and other areas of sciences. ... Disappointed Socrates turned his attention to the study of the human character.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+and+socrates

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
___Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

No, my main categories are the human condition, science, and the universe. I don't post the non physical. — PoeticUniverse

Are Love & Hate included in the "human condition"? Can you show me a picture of such "physical" things? Are questions about the "human condition" limited to Quantitative physics & chemistry, or do they include the intangible Qualia that discriminate between "animal condition" or "vegetable condition" and "human condition"? Does your "universe" include "happiness" or "sorrowfulness", or "ugliness", or any of a zillion other mental states? Does your "Science" include Principles that are universals, not particulars? If so, what's physical about a Principle? :wink:

Admittedly, some posters on this forum seem to imagine they are doing physics, when they take a Materialist or Naive Realist philosophical stance. But, that frame-of-Mind itself is still Meta-physical, unless you know of a physical instance of an Attitude. :joke:


-ness. a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state
Note -- are "abstractions" real & physical? Can they be found in Brains and dissected? Or, are they limited to abstract Minds, and analyzed rationally?

Naive Realism :
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

What's going on here, in physical terms? :

Is eternity self-evident? By eternity, I don’t only mean the notion of time collapsing, I also mean infinite phenomena. Infinity and eternity are one in the same. I for some reason find this to be an axiomatic truth which requires no reasoning, logically structured argument, or faith. It is an inherent, self-proving truth. Please tell me your thoughts. — Mp202020

Yes. For brevity, in my writing I sometimes refer to Eternity & Infinity as "Enfernity" : similar to Einstein's "Block-Time" or "Space-Time", but in a holistic sense, timeless & spaceless. Unfortunately, for Materialists & Atheists anything that is not particular is non-sense and counter-intuitive. So, on this forum, we spend a lot of time talking past each other about what's obvious and what's imaginary. Since we humans have no sensory experience of timelessness or spacelessness, or Zero, or Infinity, such abstractions are not intuitive for those who see only with their eyes, and dismiss imaginary concepts as "unreal", hence non-sense. Consequently, they may become offended if you ask them to show you an instance of Zero. :smile:

Enfernity, Enfernal :
A contraction of “Eternity & Infinity” to indicate the irrelevance of those dualistic terms in the holistic state prior to the emergence of space & time from the Big Bang Singularity. Eternity is not a long time, it's the absence of space-time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Block Time :
In Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, time is woven together with the three dimensions of space, forming a bendy, four-dimensional space-time continuum—a “block universe” encompassing the entire past, present, and future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Yes, nonsense, and worse nonsense if they aren't referring to something physical. — PoeticUniverse

True, but trivial. What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?

Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke:

MetaPhysics :
The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

"Metaphysics, it turns out, is the science of essence." [not objects]

Metaphysics : " It is an inquiry to the nature of the Reality as a whole." [not the parts]

"Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality." [not proximate]

As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ρ still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical. — SpinOwOza

Throughout history, and probably pre-history, humans have generally agreed that the notion of a Creator makes sense. What they argued about was specific attributes (human form?) & interests (chosen people) of that axiomatic deity. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of a meaningless godless world become imaginable. Ironically, in that case the rational designing deity is typically replaced with, not Nothing, but irrational random accidents & chaotic cosmic coincidences. Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there. :smile:

The religious thinkers . . . . . but don't question that since they've granted immunity to its prosecution by merely just declaring it to be supernatural and hyperphysical, and, to protect it even more add infinite scope to its Mind — PoeticUniverse

It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? They are literally super-Science in that they go beyond the pragmatic & legal limits of the scientific method. But then, philosophers are not sworn to abide by the laws of Science.

I would think that a practicing programming poet would feel a kinship with those who explore imaginative What-Ifs instead of just prosaic What-Is. Poetry is not subject to empirical testing, only to subjective meaning. Poetry is neither True nor False, but Fictional Facts that resonate with human feelings. My "religion", if you insist on calling it by that name, is to appreciate the poetry of Reality and Ideality. Philosophy is an onerous search for hidden truths, but Poetry reveals the truths that are right in front of us. Poetry doesn't have to prove anything to you ; it makes no claim to objectivity. :cool:


As a moralist, Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood. He is of the view that philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea / truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion.

Despite the clear dangers of poetry, Socrates regrets having to banish the poets. He feels the aesthetic sacrifice acutely, and says that he would be happy to allow them back into the city if anyone could present an argument in their defense.

“That which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.” ― Albert Einstein


What happened before the Big Bang? :
Before the beginning
https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html

"According to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public was: what came before the Big Bang?"

For me, metaphysics is the set of rules. — T Clark

Will you give me some examples of those Metaphysical rules?

I was never really interested in discussing "metaphysics" or metaphysics as such. I want to talk about, and use, Collingwood's metaphysical way of seeing things in my everyday and intellectual life. — T Clark

I was not familiar with Collingwood, so I googled and scanned the Stanford biography. I didn't see anything specifically about a list of rules. And in general, his approach seemed to be more theoretical & academic abstractions than pragmatic & everyday applications. He seems to be mostly concerned with classifications & distinctions. One distinction mentioned in the article was between Realism and Idealism, and it said "Collingwood is often referred to as a British idealist". I didn't see anything that would distinguish his definition of "Metaphysics" from any other philosophical topic. Can you summarize his "metaphysical way of seeing things"? Is it a spiritual worldview? :smile:

The One of Necessity that has to be, per Parmenides, as the simplest base. The least can lead to the great, albeit temporary, as seen in our universe. — PoeticUniverse

Exactly! Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe. :nerd:

Necessary Being :
Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”),
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Parmenides-Greek-philosopher

The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. That's why I avoid postulating humanoid deities that, even though presumed immortal, are not necessarily eternal. Leaving open the question of turtle-like regression. Instead, my hypothetical "Programmer" is defined as Meta-physical -- hence not locked in the cycle of birth & death -- and as Enfernal (eternal & infinite) -- neither progressive not regressive, merely Potential. You may ask how I know that? I don't. I merely infer the definitive attributes of a Necessary Being. I can't prove empirically that there IS such a Being. But, I can prove Logically, that there must be a Necessary Being. :wink:

For a minute, let’s discuss what I want metaphysics to be, but which it probably isn’t. At least not entirely – I want it to be the set of rules, assumptions we agree on to allow discussion, reason, to proceed, e.g. there is a knowable external, objective reality; truth represents a correspondence between external reality and some representation of it; it’s turtles all the way down; the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Ha! — T Clark

There are few things in life that are exactly what we want them to be. So philosophers, unlike Scientists, tend to adapt the Self to the Situation (Ethics), instead of changing the world to better suit the human body (Physics).

It would be nice if we could all agree on a "set of rules" for discussing metaphysical questions. That would at least put philosophy on a stable foundation, like the "show-me" empiricism of Science. And Francis Bacon probably devised his Method of Inference with that in mind. But, to date, the best we've been able to do is to quantify the uncertainty of our educated guesses. Since practical physical science deals with real things, at least we can add to the statistical certainty of our inferences by repeating experiments, in order to weed-out exceptions to the general rule. But theoretical Metaphysical Science deals with Ideal concepts that merely represent crude approximations of reality (*1 icons).

Unfortunately, Post-Enlightenment Science staked a claim on all empirically verifiable questions (just the facts, no feelings *2), and left-over for Philosophy only the perennial probability questions that have more-or-less-likely answers. Science greedily hoarded all the objective facts under its purview, and let naive philosophers argue endlessly about subjective opinions. Hence, feckless philosophers can only hope to get Closer-To-Truth, by following Aristotle's logical rules for Induction.

However, some Philosophers, Theologians, and a few Scientists don't even agree that there is a "knowable external reality" for our concepts to correspond to. In that case, there's no benefit to logical argument. So only power rules. And Ecclesiastical Courts of Inquisition take the place of experimentation for ruling out error. So the only humane alternative is to have Democratic Courts of Inquiry like The Philosophy Forum, limited only by Logic and respect for civilized discourse.

That said, we are still faced with agreeing on a definition of whatever it is we are disagreeing about. Which is even more difficult, if we can't even agree on what divisive topics fall under the umbrella of Metaphysics. Some dismiss the very idea of non-physics as non-sense, and refuse to even engage in dialog. And others dismiss physics as illusions of greedy minds. So, that's why I went back to Aristotle, to discover what topics he excluded from his book of Physics, and which he included in the second volume "After-Physics". The substance of volume II later became known to Medieval Christians as the "Meta-Physics", and to Enlightenment Scientists as "non-stuff" and "non-sense".

In Volume I, he defined what today we would call the Elements (Matter) and the Principles (Laws) of Physics, illustrated with specific instances. Then, in the Meta-Physics, he turned to the various ideas that humans have postulated, to explain the mysteries of the Real World. Those ideas are not themselves found in Reality, but in human imagination. Hence, we call them "Ideal". And even pragmatic Aristotle adopted Plato's notion of Ideal "Forms" (ideal patterns for real things) in his explanations. And that non-physical concept is also at the core of my own worldview, based on the Reality and Ideality of what we now call "In-form-ation". :nerd:


Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

PS___That definition of the disputatious term implies that Philosophers have no business arguing by the rules of Physics, instead of the applicable rules of Reason.

*1 Do We See Icons or Reality? :
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/12/05/do-we-see-icons-or-reality-a-review-of-donald-hoffmans-the-case-against-reality-brian-martin/

*2 Facts vs Opinions :
In the 1950's TV police drama, Dragnet, dour detective Joe Friday --- whenever a witness began to stray from observations to insert personal impressions --- would shush them with "just the facts ma'am".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(1951_TV_series)

'Nothing' cannot even be meant. — PoeticUniverse

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped it, and the Christian Church used it to fend off heretics. Today it's a timebomb ticking in the heart of astrophysics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082LN7XPV/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

So about 1/27 of the total volume of space in the present universe came to exist. Can space itself expand with a faster than light velocity? Hmm... A length of space larger than the diameter of the present-day observable space came into being during that inflation period. But were things moving FTL? — Verdi

Good question. The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic.

That's why I'm surprised that so many scientists accept such an egregious hypothesis, simply because it seems to replace divine Creation, with a smoke & mirrors Magic Act. I'm neither a Theist nor Atheist, so I'm not desperate enough to accept Scientish Magic in place of Religious Magic. So, my thesis is not based on Faith, but on rational inference --- from what-is to what-might-be. It's just a philosophical thesis, not an emotional religion. :nerd:


Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.

Egregious : extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake;

Zeptosecond - the smallest time unit ever measured
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=smallest+measurable+fraction+of+time

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers. . . . . “nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
___Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=3bb8aefab45e

So, we uncertainly infer by "fact and reason" that 'The Mind' just happens to be sitting around as First, — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?

Multiverse theories, infer that an unknowable eternal universe has always existed, and froths with bubble universes that come & go. A likely story, but based on what "facts & reason"? Even within our knowable universe, scientists have imagined an unreal period of hyper-inflation --- fraction of an instant; near zero to astronomical size --- which fortuitously exceeds the speed limit of our own bubble universe.

The mathematical reasoning for that magical "presto!" appearance of something-from-nothing simply worked backwards from a desired conclusion to a highly improbable and unnatural process. Apparently, materialists faced with an apparent Creation Event, can imagine a variety of alternative explanations, and even make them seem reasonable by plucking numbers out of the air. Anything prior to the Big Bang beginning is uncertain, even when postulated by eminent scientists. :nerd:

Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe . . . .
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/cosmic-inflation/

Presto : 1 : suddenly as if by magic

Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. — PoeticUniverse

I'll ignore the blasphemy. A mind capable of designing an evolutionary process, and then implementing it in malleable physical stuff, could hardly be called imperfect. So, I conclude that the tendency to "fall apart" was intentional. Perfecting is a process, Perfection is an end. So to get from imperfection to perfection requires a period of weeding out the unfit. A sculptor begins with a blank block of marble, and carves away everything that is not a "perfect" imitation of the model in his mind. :grin:

“When carving stone, the sculptor removes everything that is not the statue."
___Judith Hanson Lasater

So, how did 'The Mind' and its information, out of thin air, such as it is, not the best, get programmed? Or do we just have to explain an event such as our universe, but not anything much wider in scope — PoeticUniverse

That's easy. Our space-time world is limited by program parameters, but the Programmer (Enformer) of the world exists outside the space-time program. Is that so hard to imagine? A computer programmer is not "in" the computer, hence not bound by its rules. Instead, the computer is created to serve the purposes of the Programmer. The realm outside the confines of the computer is "much wider in scope" than anything within the low-resolution program.

If our world is a space-time bubble, whatever is outside the membrane is Not Space Time, hence could be eternal. Even the imaginary Multiverse is assumed to have always existed. So who programmed the Multiverse, with Natural Laws & Energy & Matter? If you like, you can imagine the Programmer of our world as an ever-growing tower-of-turtles, but only an Eternal Programmer can end the inconclusive ellipsis of open-ended existence. . . . . . . . . . .

When philosophers and scientists begin to develop an explanatory theory for a mystery, they usually begin with an Axiom : an unproven assumption. G*D, Logos, First Cause, Prime Mover is the all-encompassing axiom upon which my thesis is founded. That simple assumption is postulated as a beginning point for further argumentation. The rest of the argument is in the Enformationism website, and the BothAnd Blog. Any questions? :joke:


Axiom : An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

Pragmatic Idealism :
the kind of Pragmatic Idealism I'm envisioning does not replace scientific Realism --- and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters --- because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief. Only the unreal (ideal) Deity is, by necessity, taken for granted as an axiom.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

You can break the laws of nature? Really? Where? How? Let me see! — Artemis

Drivers on speed-limited highways "break" the law by exceeding the posted limit. Nature has imposed certain limits on its creatures (Natural Laws), but arrogant humans have gone beyond those limitations. In that sense, they "break" the law. For example, where terrestrial animals are bound to the ground by their "nature", humans have learned to fly with artificial wings, and even to "slip the surly bonds of earth" to fly into uninhabitable space. That's un-natural, and un-lawful. Do you "see" what I'm saying? :joke:

even if you're right... being the most powerful natural beings doesn't make us and our culture unnatural. — Artemis

Perhaps not. But it does make our way of life Artificial. :cool:

Artificial synonym : unnatural
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/artificial

It fails. Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. — PoeticUniverse

My worldview acknowledges the imperfections of our beloved world, and offers a rationale for a less-than-ideal creation of a World Creator : it ain't perfect until it's over. Nothing that changes will ever be perfect (whole, complete), until it ceases to change. Perfection has no room for evolution. So, our role is merely to evolve, until we can't go no mo'.

Only ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) or Full-Circle are complete and perfect. Since we are somewhere in the middle of those extremes, we can only assume that the world is still evolving from Alpha toward Omega. Hence, imperfect creatures cannot expect a perfect creation. However, it's good-enough for my moderate needs and expectations. So, I'm content (dare I say "happy"?) with Aristotelian Moderation in all things. That's a philosophical/Stoic attitude toward a less than perfect world. Are you a frustrated perfectionist? :cool:

PS___are you disappointed in your imperfect world?

How to beat Perfectionism :
Perfectionism rarely begets perfection—only disappointment.
The Stoics understood how pointless—and dangerous to our mental health and progress in life—those thoughts were.
https://dailystoic.com/perfectionism/

Therefore using same logic, Spinoza's view that God = nature and nature = God is imperfect as well. — SpaceDweller

Is anything in this world perfect? My religious up-bringing repeatedly pointed to the imperfection of humans, and human logic. But then, it pointed to a leather-bound book, and declared that it was "perfect" as a revelation from God.

Yet, after the age of reason I concluded, via my imperfect logic, that the man-made book was so obviously imperfect, that I couldn't believe a word it said. Since the only thing Perfect is ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) only death will make my life perfect. In the meantime, I simply deal with uncertainty, and make-do with good-enough for pragmatic purposes. :smile:

PS___I accept that Nature is G*D, in the sense that the First Cause created the world out of H/er own substance : Information (the creative power to enform). So, the space-time creation is imperfect and evolving; but the Enfernal (eternal-- infinite) Creator must be perfect, in the sense of Whole, Complete, ALL.


PanEnDeism :
Panendeism (all in god) is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

The 'theoretical' Philosophy has no theory in concluding "deemed to be God" because 'deeming' doesn't make 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

As a philosophical hypothesis, I would use the term "inferred". In my Enformationism thesis I provide the factual basis and the reasoning. "To Deem" is to have an opinion. But "to infer" is to have good reasons. Of course, all inferences, scientific or philosophical, are uncertain. To "infer" a Big Bang from astronomical evidence doesn't "make" a universe from nothing. But, so far, nobody has come up with a better solution to the perennial philosophical "why" questions. So, G*D is my "theory", and I'm sticking to it. :joke:

To Infer : deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements

Theory : an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

What is the main purpose of philosophy? :
Philosophy overall aims to question assumptions we make about our lives and really dig in to the details of why we think what we think and how we choose to act. It can get complicated at times, but it can also help a person to see more clearly that there are other ways of looking at the world than is our habit.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/philosophy-definition-purpose.html

The sticky part #1 is that humans ARE natural beings as well. Just as much as a bird. So how does a building or a computer differ from a nest? They're are both built by natural beings. — Artemis

True, but trivial. Everything in the world is "natural". But only one species of natural beings has gone beyond the limitations of Natural Laws, to become a law unto themselves. Humans can now break, or bend, the laws of Nature to their own Will (culture). Admittedly, sometimes this "super-natural" power works to their own detriment (pollution) , but the law-bending also results in undeniable benefits to humanity (air-conditioning).

Ask yourself if you'd rather live like a cave-man (i.e. like an animal), or like a modern house-man ; or woman. The cave-dwellers used cold dark caverns and rough animal skins to shield them from adverse weather conditions. But, modern home-dwellers have air-conditioning to make the indoor weather more suitable to their preferences. That power to rule over Nature, makes humans more like gods than animals. As a species, humans have not yet created a Garden of Eden, but they are working on it. :joke:

PS___The technological progress of humanimals may seem to be offset by a lack of moral progress. However, from a long-term perspective, the ethical treatment of animals & fellow humans has evolved in a positive direction, as illustrated by Steven Pinker's book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, i.e. Human Nature .

If you want to join us you're more than welcome. :wink: — Raul

I might be interested in an open-ended Discussion, but not a Yes-or-No Debate. :smile:

Why are they natural, but human buildings are unnatural? — TiredOfYall

Bird's nests are Natural, because they are "designed" by evolution. Buildings are Cultural because humans take control of plodding erratic Evolution, in order to speed it up, and turn it to their own purposes. :smile:

Nature vs Culture :
What makes culture distinct, according to Ortner, is that it has the power to transcend the natural and manipulate it for its own purpose.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-relationship-between-nature-culture-diana-szpotowicz

One cannot even hope to have an 'explanation' that itself would need all the more explanation, to the nth degree, even, plus as a regress. — PoeticUniverse

That may be true of empirical Science. But not of theoretical Philosophy. Yet, the best they could come up with is a mysterious hypothetical First Cause that at least terminates the regression of Evolution at a Question Mark (Singularity ; God ; Logos, ?) instead of a never-ending tower-of-turtles ellipsis (multiverse ; many worlds) . . . . .

Philosophers have been "explaining" the same general questions to each generation for eons. Ironically, even empirical scientists get mired in eternal regress whenever they try to explain general questions, such as a Theory of Everything. :joke:

TOE or GOD ? :
A theory of everything (TOE or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, theory of the world or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

First Cause vs Infinite Regress :
A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

A Deistic profession of Faith :
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

Given all the discoveries and insights we collected, I think it's rather God or infinity (That is God or I don't know): — SpaceDweller

That was indeed my choice, many years ago, when I decided that my Back-to-the-Bible religion was no longer believable. However, I had no answer to more general philosophical questions, such as "why are we here?", or "Did something come from nothing". So, for years, I labeled myself an Agnostic (I simply don't know).

But now, after many more years of philosophical investigation, I call myself a Deist. That allows me to say I believe that some kind of God (creative principle) was necessary to account for the existence of our contingent temporary world. But, I still don't know anything directly about the First Cause, except what I can infer from studying the non-random Effects of Creation. That way, I can have my Creator and Science too. :smile:

PS__But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. So, I just make the best of a sometimes difficult situation.

Still can't have 'The Mind' as First and Fundamental even as a Potential that thinks as much as an Actual; complexity can't be just sitting around already complete. — PoeticUniverse

So you say. And that's a true statement . . . in the physical Real World. But, the metaphysical Ideal Realm may not be bound by the physical rules of thermodynamics. Scientists have long been perplexed by the existence of "Natural Laws" in a dynamic world scrambled by fundamental Randomness. For Plato's Forms, actual complexity is not "just sitting around already complete". Instead, a Metaphysical Form is merely the Potential Design for a future thing, that must then be Actualized, sometimes by a prolonged complex process of evolution, into a Physical Thing.

For example, if randomness is just a tool for creating novel opportunities, then maybe that tool is "wielded" so-to-speak by the organizing law of Natural Selection. Together, the random-number-generator and the non-random-fitness-selector form a progressive evolutionary program for optimizing a design. But that program would not exist without a Programmer, who has the mental potential to imagine a future reality, and to make it actual. In the First Cause scenario, the computer -- our complexifying physical universe -- is merely the execution of a simple Genetic Algorithm.

So, maybe you can't make sense of a Primal Mind, but a designing mind is essential to an evolutionary program. The mind doesn't have to do the work though, it merely sets the criteria for Selection (Natural Laws). Then, the Programmer starts the machine to grind-out solutions to the Cosmic Question. Anyway, to me, the notion that our world began as an idea in the Mind of G*D is more poetic than the null hypothesis of an accidental world, existing for no reason. That would be a meaningless irrational coincidence. Moreover, the magical theory of a world-from-nothing makes no sense without a magician. :joke:


Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Evolutionary Design :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

Genetic algorithm :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Coincidence vs Creation :
Laws of Nature’s God
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html

PS__Even in the scientific metaphor of the world as a dumb machine, someone . . . some Mind has to design the mechanism, and to turn it on. Machines don't just appear out of nowhere.

Aquinas makes an unwarranted leap here to a Being having Mind because he wants 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. As a Catholic theologian, his philosophical definition had to resemble the official Bible-God, which is described both as an eternal principle (similar to Brahman or Tao), and as a humanoid person, with some un-god-like human attributes, such as a fragile ego, and a quick temper (like Zeus). Nevertheless, I find his rational philosophical God to be closer to my own than the typical bible-thumper's hell-fire War-Lord of the World. But, I actually go back to Aristotle's non-religious ideal principles for my god-model.

BEING (being qua being) would not "have" a mind or brain, but would be The Mind, in the sense of containing & processing all of the information necessary to create a space-time world from scratch (i.e. physical world from meta-physical design -- an idea & a plan). Philosophical god-models are usually abstract & potential, as opposed to the Religious deities that are concrete & actual.

Brahman :
In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe.

Tao or Dao is a Chinese word signifying the "way", "path", "route", "road" or sometimes more loosely "doctrine", "principle" or "holistic beliefs". Wikipedia

That's better; I hope Aquinas is listening. It's not only simple as a necessity for its forming of the lightweight elementaries but also because its needs to be partless and continuous to be Absolute as Fundamental. It would not be able to think, plan, and create via a System of Mind as the ultimate simplicity; however, so it is that the lesser leads to the greater, not as Aquinas' view that is the reverse and would lead to an infinite regress of greaters making lessers. — PoeticUniverse

In my worldview, the First Cause (Creator) must be eternal (timeless) and simple (in the sense of atomic Holism). However, in order to produce the space-time world --- that we know & love, and grumble about --- the Cosmic Cause must have the infinite Potential to subdivide the whole into subordinate parts, while remaining more than the sum of the parts. And the power to create beings that not only have living bodies, but also thinking & planning minds. Consequently, a physical deity would not suffice. Only a metaphysical BEING could be "partless and continuous" (no elementary particles). In order to be Eternal and Necessary and Creative, that First Cause would have to comply with Aristotle's metaphor of a Seed of Potential. The seed is not a tree, but it contains coded information (DNA) that can be transformed into a full-grown tree.

Potential vs Actual :
This connects the matter/form distinction to another key Aristotelian distinction, that between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) or activity (energeia).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActuPote

'Is', not 'was'. It's enough to know that it's the simplest possible, it being the closest to Null that could be. It's extremely far from Full, for as Full it could not rearrange. — PoeticUniverse

My hypothetical G*D "is" and always was. It's simple, in the sense of an undivided Whole, but in order to create, must have the power & potential to produce a physical world, not from Material, but from Ideas (Information). Since G*D per se is no-physical-thing, it is "Null" in terms of actual things. However, it must also be All-metaphysical-things in the sense of creative Potential. Hence, "Full" of unformed possibilities.

G*D—God Damn! To boldly jump to it having Mind is a leap much more than a tiny quantum jump. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! Absolutely. If the First Cause did not have the Power to conceive a world,, how could human minds emerge from the rough & tumble of mindless Evolution. The conceptual leap is from a humanoid god-concept to an abstract philosophical principle :Mind qua Mind = intellect, consciousness, thought

The Philosophical Principle : being qua being.

Conceive : 2. form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.

What is a first principle in philosophy? :
A first principle is a foundational proposition or assumption that stands alone. We cannot deduce first principles from any other proposition or assumption.

Being Qua Being :
Metaphysics is the study of "being qua being", or the study of attributes that belong to things merely insofar as they exist, e.g. existence, unity, sameness and difference.

1. This Permanent Thing would be local everywhere, as it is before and after our universe and during. Further, as it's the only thing, its rearrangements are it too; even we are it. — PoeticUniverse

I agree. That's why I define my personal First Cause simply as BEING : essential existence. Aquinas defined his God as the Necessary Being, without whom nothing (no beings) would exist. It's the "only thing" that exists absolutely. So simple unitary existence must be the beginning point of all theories of how & why the space-time world exists. Some postulate that space-time/matter-energy is eternal, but the Big Bang cosmology --- including the Big Freeze finale --- put a damper on such speculations. And physical Nature has never been shown to create something from nothing.

So, if we accept the logic of First Cause or Necessary Being, we can assume, without fear of contradiction, that some universal creative agency existed prior to the beginning of Space-Time. That said & set though, the "hard problem" is to determine what that hypothetical "permanent thing" was, in a more definitive sense. Reductionists & Materialists prefer to imagine that it was more-of-the-same forever : turtles-all-the-way-down. But Holists & Idealists lean toward Meta-physical & Essential answers to ultimate questions. Unfortunately, neither side can prove their pet theory, empirically or logically. So, it comes down to a matter of opinion and preference. For my money though, the eternally un-changing Ideality answers make more sense, than anything resembling our temporal and ever-changing impermanent Reality.

Ironically, most religious god-models are based on imperfect impermanent human features. That's why I prefer philosophical non-physical god-theories, such as those of Aristotle & Aquinas. :nerd:


Does modern cosmology prove the existence of God? :
The Kalam cosmological argument asserts that everything that exists has a cause, and what caused the Universe? It's got to be God.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/modern-cosmology-god/

Kalam Cosmological Argument :
1. whatever begins to exist has a cause,
2. the Universe began to exist,
3. and therefore the Universe has a cause to its existence.

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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

OFF TOPIC :
My internet connection is slow & erratic today. Anybody else notice the slow responses? A Google search didn't find any experts blaming it on the current Solar Storm. But, since Something doesn't come from Nothing, that will be my assumption until I find some other deity to pin it on. :joke:

A couple of years ago, I posted a review of The Feeling of Life Itself on my blog. I am generally interested in his ideas, but I can't say that I'm "passionate". FWIW, here's the link :
The Feeling of Consciousness
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page18.html