My objection rests heavily on the inconsistency of there existing a perfect being in the same reality as an imperfect world. Can anyone provide an argument that provides justification for the existence of evil while taking into account the unnecessary evils, or gratuitous evils, that we seem to observe throughout our life experiences? — tryhard

Yes. I accept Aristotle's logic, which concludes that a First Cause is necessary to explain the contingent existence of our world. That's even more obvious since the evidence for a cosmic beginning was discovered in the notions of evolution and expansion. But although his Prime Mover was self-existent, he didn't insist that it was "perfect", in the sense of moral excellence.

So, my hypothetical model for a self-existent Programmer of our long-running & continually-evolving program is Eternal & Infinite Potential, hence all-encompassing. And that definition includes the potential (or statistical possibility) for both Good & Evil. Therefore, like all executing, but incomplete,digital algorithms, our world computes both positive & negative values (1s & 0s). But the final result (synthesis) remains to be calculated. The up & down dialectic process of evolution swings back & forth between Thesis (e.g. positive, relatively good) & Anti-thesis(e.g. negative ; relatively bad) high & low points. And the ultimate output value remains in the unforeseeable future.

This is a PanEnDeistic (not in same reality) concept of a cosmic creator, which is unlike the typical Theistic model of Goodness & Perfection, that belies the reality of an OK-but-hardly-perfect creation. Since evolution explores both positive & negative possibilities, there's no need for a Heaven or Hell. What you see, is what you get. :smile:


What is Hegelian dialectic of good and evil :
As for good and evil, Hegel was extremely obscure on the issue, and Marx of course dismissed them as metaphysical abstractions detached from reality.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/42562/what-is-hegelian-dialectic-of-good-and-evil-and-how-does-it-relate-to-binary-opp

All things in formation in the physical world have a potential counterpart in our brain. — EugeneW

Good point! The brain creates a model (analogy or counterpart) of the real world. Unfortunately, some posters seem to confuse the model with the terrain, or the terrain with the model, or the neuron with the idea. In this thread, the terrain is physical Reality & neuronal Brain, while the model is meta-physical Ideality & noumenal Mind. :smile:


This quote comes from Alfred Korzybski, father of general semantics: “A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”. To sum up, our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our own “map”.
http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfolio-Item/the-map-is-not-the-territory/
Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern.

I don't want to get into this again. — T Clark

I was not criticizing you, but the "claim" that you were noting. Sorry, if that was not obvious. :yikes:

There are many here who will defend the claim that ideas are merely neurological states. — T Clark

For the purposes of objective scientists, that claim may be acceptable. But philosophers are more interested in the subjective meaningful aspect of Ideas. For example, neurologists, back in the 60s, discovered that touching a probe to a specific area of a conscious brain could elicit a "complex but specific" idea (image or feeling) of Jennifer Anniston or Grandmother. As far as the brain-surgeon was concerned, that single neuron evoked a single idea. But it was never that simple.

Exciting a single neuron triggers a cascade of signals that propagate throughout the brain & body, seeking out other neurons that have been associated with that cell in the past. Related ideas may include the cedar scent of grandma's house, or her smiling eyes, or the sound of her voice, or a Christmas present. What I'm saying is that "neuron states" are holistic & multivalent --- and so are concepts & feelings. Consequently, the connection between stimulus & response is not so simple.

That's because a multivalent mental image is not a one-to-one correspondence to a single neuron. So, the simplistic Mind/Brain Identity theory, while serviceable for neurosurgeons, does not answer philosophical questions about the ontology of Mind, its functional relationship to the body, and the epistemology of Meaning. It's also not very helpful for inferring how another person feels about a particular objective situation. However, the emerging field of Integrated Information Theory is beginning to piece-together the reductive sub-components of Consciousness into a holistic understanding of Mind in its comprehensive context, including physical & functional aspects. :nerd:


The grandmother cell, sometimes called the "Jennifer Anniston neuron", is a hypothetical neuron that represents a complex but specific concept or object. It activates when a person "sees, hears, or otherwise sensibly discriminates" a specific entity, such as their grandmother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_cell

Excitatory neurotransmitters cause the signal to propagate - more action potentials are triggered.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/organ-systems/neuron-membrane-potentials/a/neuron-action-potentials-the-creation-of-a-brain-signal

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

Integrated Information Theory :
Initially proposed by Giulio Tononi in 2004, it claims that consciousness is related to a certain kind of information, the realization of which requires physical, not merely functional, integration,
https://iep.utm.edu/integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness/

What am I saying? I say that the physical and metaphysical are mutually dependent. — EugeneW

Agreed. :smile:

I think also, maybe, we have to learn to let it go sometimes - I think your criticisms of 'scientism' are generally warranted but it is deeply embedded in today's culture, but sometimes we have to resist the urge to try and explain that to everyone, all the time. (Again, speaking from experience.) — Wayfarer

I am by nature a passive person. But as I get older, I get ornerier. I used to let the opposition push me around. But now I am more likely to fight back, not with volume, but with persistence. That's primarily because I believe the universal role of Information in the world, is the future of both Science and Philosophy.

The anti-metaphysicalists tend to argue their position by simply insisting on the final authority of reductive materialistic science, and by shouting-down the holistic non-physical "idiots". I don't have any problem with empirical Science on legitimate physical topics. But I think non-empirical Philosophy is the better way to discuss, not necessarily prove, questions about intangibles, such as the never-ending Origin-of-Life & Body/Mind controversies.

Yes, Enformationism is my retirement hobby. And it is my personal position on almost all philosophical questions. So, I join a handful of leading-edge scientists & philosophers in trying to promote a new paradigm of Science. It's a novel approach to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, which addresses the question of how dumb Matter can produce Mind. In a previous paradigm shift, Information theory & Quantum mechanics both forced-open new doors to our comprehension on Reality. And both have revealed paradoxes underneath our classical and intuitive understanding of the world, that were grudgingly accepted, despite their absurdity. Enformationism is not about Information Technology, but about non-physical Philosophy, the science of Ideas.

Although Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive, its success in controlling Nature has forced us to admit that small-scale physics is weird. And Information Theory has been proven to be effective in opening new channels for communication of ideas. Ironically, its success in Artificial Intelligence, has obscured it's role in Natural Intelligence and in Ideas per se. So, those of us who do grok the universal applications of essential (and causal) Information, are facing a general lack of comprehension, and resistance from the dug-in old guard. Undaunted, we soldier on, as the proponents of a new paradigm must do, in order to advance both Science and Philosophy. :nerd:

New Paradigm :
1. A new way of thinking or doing things that replaces the old way.
2. A set of beliefs that replaces another set which is believed no longer to apply
3. A new logical framework for understanding a situation
4. Science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon [e.g. consciousness], and someone proposes a new theory [i.e. universal causal information].

Information and Causality :
Recent advances suggest that the concept of information might hold the key to unravelling the mystery of life's nature and origin. Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems. A unique cross-disciplinary perspective, drawing on expertise from philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics, and cognitive and social sciences, provides a new way to look at the deepest questions of our existence. This book addresses the role of information in life, and how it can make a difference to what we know about the world. __Paul Davies, physicist, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

I don't consider metaphysics as "the mental aspects of the world," and I doubt Aristotle did. Admittedly, that opinion is based on what I've read others say Aristotle said, not on a personal reading. — T Clark

Google "aristotle metaphysics topics". Then ask yourself if "Categories"; "Being Qua Being"; Principles"; or "Substance & Essence" are physical things or meta-physical (mental) ideas about the world. I merely adopted "metaphysics" as an inclusive term for the non-physical aspects of the real world that we distinguish from Nature with the name "Culture". For nearly 14 billion years the world was totally physical. But when the human mind emerged from the muck, immaterial memes began to evolve in an artificial simulation of genetic evolution. Do you think that immaterial (imaginary) "mind-stuff" has had any significant impact on the "real" world? :smile:

PS___It's not just my unorthodox usage of the term "Metaphysics", that the adherents of Scientism object to, but anything referring to non-physical or emergent aspects of the world. I have tried "Non-Physical", "Menta-Physical", "MInd-stuff", :Memes", "Cultural", "Ideal", "Qualia", and various other alternatives. But they just don't see anything non-physical about Reality. For them, Ideas are merely neurological states. That's like saying the Function of an automobile is a steel structure. They also interpret all immaterial or non-physical notions as spooky "super-natural" beliefs, even though I try to avoid that baggage-laden term. Anyway, if you can suggest another way to talk about the perennial Mind/Body and Brain/Mind questions, please let me know. :meh:

I didn't say your position is confusing, I said it is difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand that my BothAnd-ism worldview doesn't fit neatly into a traditional Scientism Either/Or pigeonhole, or even the traditional philosophical niches of Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. Yet, I'm not so much trying to defend my "idiosyncratic" personal philosophy, as to defend a besieged moderate position in a polarized world. In this thread, the poles seem to be Physics vs Metaphysics. When I naively started posting on TPF, I assumed that Metaphysical topics would not be controversial. But I soon found that, in the binary worldview of anti-metaphysical "Trolls", Meta-Physics is interpreted as traitorous "anti-science".

Ironically, my unorthodox thesis originated from a seemingly paradoxical comment by a Quantum physicist, to the effect that : "on the quantum scale there's nothing but abstract Information". With that in mind, I studied Information & Systems theories, and concluded that mental Information is just as "physical" as immaterial Energy. By that I mean, it's not material -- there's no tangible substance to it -- but it has measurable effects on matter. So, in that sense, Information is the kind of Qualia that Aristotle discussed in his Metaphysics, and that Spinoza called the "universal substance" of the world.

Therefore, my middle-of-the-road position may be sympathetic with some mind-based Eastern philosophies (not religions), but it is still compatible with (post-Quantum) Western matter-based science. Unfortunately, from the polarized perspective of Scientism, "East is East and West is West", period. So, I'm fighting an uphill battle to change that binary & exclusive attitude. :smile:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
___ Rudyard Kipling

Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

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 its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
* It’s a cosmo-centric view-point rather than an ego-centric, or tribal, or national, or creed-centered standpoint.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space — Gnomon
Just filing this away. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The article is a scientific analysis of just one among many paradoxes that arose from Einstein's revolutionary classical-paradigm-challenging worldview. But my interest is more philosophical and focused on the emergent Information-centric understanding of reality. I may write a blog post on this topic when I get time. :smile:

PS___I don't consider Albert's redefinition of Space to be a "Fallacy". but merely an apparent Paradox. that is hard to reconcile with our inherited & intuitive worldviews.

I’m generally sympathetic to your motives, although I have to say, critical of your methods. — Wayfarer

You are not the only one critical of my methods. (see reply to TClark above). I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, getting stung from both sides of the Physical-vs-Meta divide. How would you characterize my methods, and what would you recommend to refine them? :smile:

PS___If nothing else comes from this thread, we will at least learn to avoid those posters with tender toes that get stepped-on by Metaphysical dancers. Ouch! :gasp:

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand your confusion. My Enformationism worldview is indeed idiosyncratic. It doesn't fit neatly into traditional philosophical niches of Physics or Metaphysics. Instead, it conceptually bridges the philosophical gap between scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism.

The ubiquitous role of Information seems to be an emergent idea that is ahead of its time. That's partly due to the dominant-but-narrow definition of "Information" as presented by Shannon. But it's an idea being explored by a handful of scientists & philosophers on the cutting-edge of human understanding. Of course, I'm just a minor player in the emerging new paradigm of information-based reality. But everything I say on this forum is grounded in the notion that shape-shifting (causal & substantial) Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind.

You seem to find my "approach difficult to defend". How would you characterize that approach ? Does it seem confrontational, or adversarial? That's ironic, because all my life I've been a mild-mannered Caspar Milquetoast character, who kept his mouth shut when others were debating. But, now in my sunset years, I have gained more confidence in my own opinions; especially since I developed my own personal philosophical/scientific worldview. That mask of confidence might come across as aggressive or ego-centric. But, my Ukrainian defense is mostly a reflection of the aggressive attacks I get from those opposed to whatever-it-is they imagine I'm postulating. On a religious forum, I would expect a similar negative response.

Another weak aspect of my "approach" is that I have no formal training in Philosophical methods of argumentation. So my lack of sophisticated technique results in a crude seat-of-the-pants approach to the give & take of dialog. Consequently, I may seem like a bull-in-a-china-shop. But, my motivation is merely to advance an inclusive perspective that could eventually change the world's worldview toward a more moderate position, somewhere between the ideological poles that currently divide us. Yet, since moderation is often mistaken for weakness, a firm stand is necessary to avoid being blown-away by the Trolls on both sides. :cool:

idiosyncratic : distinctive. peculiar, quirky

Philosophical : relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

My idiosyncratic definition of "metaphysics" was established by Aristotle. But the Antis "conventional" definition was established by Catholic Theologians. I'm merely trying to dissociate Metaphysics (the mental aspects of the world) from that prejudice. I've tried various alternative terms, but the Antis see through the subterfuge, and attack their conventional foe, instead of my unconventional redefinition. It's based on Quantum & Information Theories that are also contentious. Se la vie. :smile:

In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to. — Tobias

Nobody said Metaphysics is easy. What Anti-Metaphysicians object to is not rational Philosophy, but irrational Faith. Unfortunately, they don't see the distinction. All the more reason to keep chipping away at the "irritation". Besides, the Trolls are not forced to engage in Metaphysical dialogs. They are like Quixotic Crusaders looking for windmill dragons to slay. :joke:

2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
You asked a question and I answered your question. That's all. Run with it. — god must be atheist

Yes. That's why I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism. It's an absolute Either/Or, Win/Lose, Self/Other, My-way-or-the-highway worldview. It violates Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of Moderation. "The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes”. Authoritarian Trolls have been trying to stop the proliferation of diverse views for millennia*1. For example Fascism & Communism are opposing views on how best to govern a populace of "stupid" people. Likewise, orthodox Scientism (love of dogma) is an opposing force to heterodox Philosophy (love of wisdom), competing for the minds of smart people.

Fortunately, many of the smartest scientists are brave enough to forgo the impenetrable shield of Scientism. They may not accept specific metaphysical beliefs, but they are broad-minded enough to accept that the scientific method does not apply to non-physical reality. In exchanges with Scientism defenders, I sometimes refer to Einstein as a Philosopher*2, and they interpret that as an aspersion on his scientific credentials. Which suggests to me that Scientism deprecates the philosophical methods worked-out by the ancient Greeks, in part as an alternative to religious dogma.

My intent in this thread is not to convert adherents of bi-valent (true/false) Scientism to multi-valent Philosophy, but merely to keep the doors of dialog open, so we don't resolve our differences with the Nuclear Option, or burning-at-the-stake, to totally annihilate the heresies of Metaphysics. :cool:


*1. "stop the proliferation" : The Catholic Society for Propagation of Faith, was established to "stop the proliferation" of unorthodox Protestant beliefs.

Aristotle considered moderation a moral virtue and Plato, in “The Republic”, described moderation as the harmony between reason, spirit, and desire.
https://www.headspace.com/articles/moderation-considered-virtue

The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/

Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

Philosophers do not aim to discover the laws of nature. That’s a job for scientists. . . . .The philosopher’s aim is not to help scientists do their job. Instead, the philosopher’s aim is to better understand the job that scientists are doing.[/b]
https://aeon.co/essays/natural-laws-cant-be-broken-but-can-they-be-defined?utm_source=pocket-newtab

In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false. A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic or bivalent logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence

*2. When Einstein imagined himself riding on a light beam, he was doing a philosophical thought experiment, instead of a scientific empirical dissection. Philosophers analyze ideas, while Scientists dissect objects.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space

Perhaps you project, sir. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. The 'black tide' is very much still in, as always.. . . .
Genuine speculation is less annoying and perhaps less common than hawking the next flavor of informagical kool-aid. — lll

Hi 3, I don't know you, and you don't know anything about me. Yet, since I use taboo terms, like "metaphysics" & "holism", apparently you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some kind of religious wacko-nut. So FYI, I profess no religion, practice no rituals, and don't believe in magic. So, you can count me among the rising ranks of "non-believers". But I remain an open-minded Agnostic, not a "negative" Atheist. You could say that, philosophically, I'm a William James "melioristic skeptic". Pleased to meet you! :smile:

So - you’re trolling the trolls? — Wayfarer

Ha! My questions above are not intended to mock the trolls, but to open a two-way dialog on, what I take to be the purpose of Philosophy : to study Human Culture in all its manifestations. The "soft" sciences scrutinize narrow segments of Humanity, but Philosophy can take a more holistic, and interdisciplinary, perspective. That encyclopedic worldview includes the physical phenomena of the world, but leaves the narrowly-focused investigations to specialists.

As I see it, Philosophy is for Generalists. By contrast, the Trolls don't trust speculative generalizations or intuitive exploration. I understand their wariness, but I don't think censorship of artistic imagination is called for. I don't have to adopt the specific beliefs of Spiritualism, for instance, in order to appreciate its significance to humanity's exploration of the world. I'm merely trying to remove the stain of sectarian Theology from the study of eclectic Metaphysics. :smile:

"Today, science-minded people understand that the dead do not speak to us, . . . . Nonetheless, we can still appreciate the beauty produced by artists who hold these beliefs."
___psychologist Stuart Vyse, Skeptical Inquirer vol46, issue2

PS___The science-defending Trolls erroneously assume that, if I take some metaphysical speculations seriously, I must have gone over to the "dark side" of Anti-Science. In the 1950s, commie-hunter Joe McCarthy savagely attacked, atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer, because, in his youth, he had been attracted to the Utopian dream of Communism. However, Oppie later realized that the dream had become a nightmare in practice. So he publicly apologized, saying, "most of what I believed then now seems complete nonsense". But his persecutor believed that "once a commie, always a commie", or at best a "fellow traveler". Likewise, the anti-metaphyics Trolls, seem to believe that any dabbling in non-science is a sin, to be punished & expurgated, lest it contaminate the purity of Physics. So, I'm merely resisting the dogma-defending Inquisition. :cool:

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

Physicalism was probably not a major intellectual issue for the Greeks & Romans & Jews. Because, except for a few unorthodox philosophers, they typically took Spiritualism for granted.

I'm not sure how far back the current physical vs non-physical contention can be traced. But a match was probably struck to the fuse when Enlightenment Science began to challenge the then-dominant Metaphysics of the Catholic Church. The subsequent separation of church & state may have cooled the flames for a while. But the resurgence of Creationism versus Evolutionism in the 20th century, stoked the latent fires of diametrically opposed worldviews : Spiritual vs Material. Around the turn of the 21st century, the Four Horsemen of Atheism began a concerted counter-attack. And the resultant polarization & politicization of worldviews is still reflected in debates on forums such as Quora and TPF.

Most of us on this forum seem to be open to polite exchanges of views. Unfortunately, those with black vs white attitudes have turned some philosophical dialogues into political diatribes. :sad:

Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical Agendas
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12649/meta-physical-versus-anti-metaphysical

That there is some sort of correlation between "the terrain", as a product of your sensations, and the thing itself, is just an assumption people make. — Metaphysician Undercover

That may be true in an abstract cognitive sense. But, if we didn't make the "connection" or "assumption" that a cliff edge (absence of solid ground) is really there, we could take a fatal step into the abyss. Our eyes & brains interpret edges as a sign that a surface changes direction. That's a useful assumption to assure evolutionary survival. Even in a Virtual Reality goggle, you'd be wise to assume, without proof, that an edge means either a real obstacle or an absent precipice. :joke:

Assumption : 1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

‘Ancient Brain’ Helps Us Interpret Edges :
https://theserf.org/news/ancient-brain-helps-us-interpret-edges/

Space is infinite. There is no end to it. The universe expands in it. Accelerated even. Will it come to a sudden stop because space ends? — EugeneW

Einstein defined the universe as "finite, but unbounded". Ironically, "unbounded" is one definition of "infinite". Yet, Einstein's mathematical universe is depicted as a sphere, which would actually be finite in space, except that "space" is inside the sphere. Now wrap your mind around the paradox of unbounded space trapped inside a finite sphere. :joke:

Einstein postulated that the universe is finite in time (bounded at the big bang singularity), and unbounded in space -- i.e., if one could travel the four dimensional universe in a geodesic one would not find a boundary, and would end up at the starting point, just like the path of a geodesic on the 3-dimension Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-the-Universe-be-finite-and-unbounded-and-still-be-Euclidean



What Lies Beyond the Edge of the Observable Universe? :
So, in some ways, infinity makes sense. But “infinity” means that, beyond the observable universe, you won't just find more planets and stars and other forms of ...
https://futurism.com/what-lies-beyond-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe

What is perceived and understood depends on the observer. — EugeneW

Yes. The eye is not the only component in vision. The brain interprets the visual stimuli in order to understand what is being seen. And even the brain has more than one way to Perceive, as exemplified in the "Blindsight" phenomenon. Moreover, the brain can Conceive of something that isn't there, as in illusions and mirages. So human perception is a combination of physical and non-physical functions. By "non-physical" I mean the interpretation of physical inputs into non-physical meaning in the Mind. Percepts are converted into Concepts. So, "what you see, ain't always what you got". :nerd:


Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as the primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.
___Wiki

So, now we are forced, and rightly so, to take the path of least resistance -- CAUSAL THEORY OF PERCEPTION. — L'éléphant

I wasn't familiar with the various theories of Perception, but the "Causal theory" seems intuitive to me. However, the "Emission Theory" seemed sensible to Plato. And Superman's X-ray Vision is a form of emission perception. So, I guess, what you Perceive is still somewhat dependent on what you Conceive. :cool:

The causal theory of perception consists roughly of the claim that necessarily, if a subject S sees an object O, then O causes S to have a visual experience. Some have held that this claim is a conceptual truth.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causal-theory-of-perception

Theories of Preception :
The four main bottom-up theories of form and pattern perception are direct perception, template theories, feature theories, and recognition-by-components theory. Bottom-up theories describe approaches where perception starts with the stimuli whose appearance you take in through your eye.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causal-theory-of-perception

Emission theory (vision) :
Emission theory or extramission theory (variants: extromission) or extromissionism is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by eye beams ...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Emission_theory_(visi...

True. But that doesn't mean you can't consider them objective reality. You gotta think something is real. — EugeneW

True! That's what Hoffman is talking about in his book, The Case Against Reality. He labels "what you think is real" as a mental model of reality, not reality as such (ding an sich). Those models are maps or guidebooks to Objective Reality, not the terrain itself. However, our maps are useful abstractions of the real world. If our models were not good approximations of the terrain though, we would soon get lost. Of course, you could "consider" your model to be "objective reality", but that would be self-deceptive. :smile:

Hoffman himself argues for Model Dependent Realism (MDR),concluding that “it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation.” . . .
However, he explains, “there is an objective reality. But that reality is utterly unlike our perceptions of objects in space and time.”
BothAnd Blog, post 105

We humans are permanently in subjective reality, as are all conscious life forms. Objection — Objective reality must exist independent of subjective reality. Just because we do not or cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_objective_reality_exist%3F

“Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.” [ My bold ]
___ Andrei Linde, theoretical physicist (cosmological inflation)

As you can see these two don't jibe with each other: on the one hand knowing is better than not knowing (2nd paragraph above) as decisions can only be made knowing what's true and what's false and on the other hand, there's this belief that we make high quality decisions when we're confused (aporia, 3rd paragraph above).
These two antipodal views both makes sense and does not is an instance of aporia (for me).
Can you help clear up the matter for me? — Agent Smith

Yes. Don't treat Truth & Falsity as "antipodal", but as a continuum between those poles.

As a recovering Perfectionist or Idealist, you need to accept that you will never know absolute Truth about anything. Nor will anyone else you encounter. That's partly due to the inherent uncertainties of the physical world, and to the intrinsic limitations of the human mind. Ironically, a common rhetorical tactic (on forums) is to present the appearance of personal Omniscience, or appeal to Authority (such as all-knowing Science), in order to manipulate confused or unsure people. Like Infinity, Comprehensive Truth is an ideal state that is never encountered in the real world.

Unkowns and mysteries are potentially dangerous, but also potentially-fruitful fields to plow . . . . carefully. Remember, Philosophy idealizes absolute Truth, but makes-do with approximate pragmatic truths, that it optimistically labels as practical "Wisdom". :smile:

Fitch’s paradox of knowability concerns any theory committed to the thesis that all truths are knowable. . . . The operative concept of “knowability” remains elusive but is meant to fall somewhere between equating truth uninformatively with what God would know and equating truth naively with what humans actually know. Equating truth with what God would know does not improve intelligibility, and equating it with what humans actually know fails to appreciate the objectivity and discoverability of truth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

Pragmatic Truth :
Unlike correspondence theories, which tend to see truth as a static relation between a truth-bearer and a truth-maker, pragmatic theories of truth tend to view truth as a function of the practices people engage in, and the commitments people make, when they solve problems, make assertions, or conduct scientific inquiry ...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH

Does this mean that, despite denying it, vehemently, we're actually using some version of paraconsistent logic? — Agent Smith

Oh yes. Inconsistency in logic is a common glitch in human reasoning. That's why the first rule of philosophy is "don't fool yourself". One way to check your own assumptions & arguments is to be aware of common fallacies. They may masquerade as commonsense, but often others will see through your facade before you do. So exchanging views on a forum like this will expose your personal "paraconsistencies" to the skeptical eye of other truth-seekers. In most cases, they will be gentle with you, because they are aware of their own shortcomings. But those who hold their own beliefs with unconditional faith, may pounce on your apparent or real errors with pitiless fervor. So, you'll need to develop a thick skin. :smile:

Absolute True Reality — Gnomon
Assuming there is such a thing. — jgill

In Reality, there is no such thing as "true reality". But absolute true Ideality, is another question. That's what Plato called the realm of "Forms". Ideality is a standard of perfection against which we compare & evaluate our imperfect world. Like "Infinity" we can conceive of such a perfect state, but we know better than to begin the journey to that destination. :joke:


What is reality? Why we still don't understand the world's true nature :
It’s the ultimate scientific quest – to understand everything that there is. But the closer we get, the further away it seems. Can we ever get to grips with the true nature of reality?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532670-700-what-is-reality-why-we-still-dont-understand-the-worlds-true-nature/

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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Note __ A perfect circle is ideally defined by Pi D or PiR^2. But, in reality there are only polygons with a series of points & sides that approximate infinity.

As an adult, that primal joy has been replaced by annoyance, anxiety, and anger. I remain as perplexed as ever, but I now dislike it, it's not fun anymore. — Agent Smith

Your frustration may be due, in part, to unrealistic expectations. When I was young, I learned the hard way that I was a perfectionist, who couldn't deal with his own imperfections. As you grow older though, you learn to lower your expectations. Especially in Philosophy, Ideals are an impossible dream. Ambition is good, in moderate doses. :cool:


"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" ___Robert Browning

So is a real particle... :wink: — EugeneW

Ah yes. As cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman postulated in his book : The Case Against Reality, all human mental models of Reality are essentially "illusions". By that, he simply means that our ideas are Ideal, not Real. Unfortunately, some people can't accept that their personal Reality is artificial and man-made. So, we should not take them as literally true, but as pointers to true reality. That's because each mental model of Reality is abstract & fragmentary, derived from a limited perspective and shaped by personal biases. Even the composite models of Science are incomplete. Presumably, only God, looking down on the world from outside, would have the True, Comprehensive, Objective perspective of Reality. Consequently, our abstract mental & mathematical models of Physical & Virtual particles are both "imaginary simulations" of Absolute True Reality. :joke:

The Case Against Reality :
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them. They are constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world.
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/

"False" models as an integral part of science :
The models that scientists use are no different from the models you use in everyday life. They are simultaneously false and useful. Learning even a small amount about scientific models can be quite useful in detecting major limitations of scientific approaches. This knowledge enables one to pose relevant questions to those who developed the model.
https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topics/False.models/Text.html

I didn't know Plato had rejected infinity. Why did he do that, may I ask? — Agent Smith

I don't think Plato "rejected infinity". As you noted, his concept of a realm of Forms is functionally infinite in a Potential sense. However, Aristotle, as a realist, may have rejected the notion of "actual Infinity" as impossible in the real world of constant beginnings & endings. However. mathematics is not inherently realistic, so it can accommodate Ideal concepts.

Modern mathematics has been forced to become comfortable with the paradoxes of infinities. So, it has developed workarounds to deal with them. The easiest dodge is to define "infinity" as a large-but-countable number. Scientists though, typically prefer to avoid Infinities for practical reasons, such as the tendency to crash computers. But fearless Philosophers boldly go where scientists fear to tread : into Metaphysical Infinity, the realm of Possibility. :nerd:


Plato on the infinite :
The world of Forms: is a world in which everything “always is,” it “has no becoming,” and “does not change” (Timeaus, 28a). We know this world of Being by reason (i.e. through the rational part of our souls).
https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/plato.html

Actual infinity :
Aristotle postulated that an actual infinity was impossible, because if it were possible, then something would have attained infinite magnitude, and would be "bigger than the heavens." However, he said, mathematics relating to infinity was not deprived of its applicability by this impossibility, because mathematicians did not need the infinite for their theorems, just a finite, arbitrarily large magnitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity


Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical.
https://www.britannica.com/science/infinity-mathematics

The "resemblance" is very interesting, indeed. But could it be that it's only in your mind? IMO, if anything, the swastika looks more like two stylized S's than Z's — Apollodorus

Of course, the shape similarity between a graphic symbol of the invasion of Ukraine, and a symbol of the invasion of Poland is an inference in the mind of the beholder. I can't read the minds of the painters, so I'm just guessing. But the political significance of such a symbol may be obvious to anyone familiar with the history of Fascism. Do you see the connection?

The link in your post indicates that reporters are still trying to understand why Russians are using a letter that is not in their Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps it's meant to symbolize their "romanticized" mission of annexing a sovereign country into their reconstituted Russian empire. Since the intended meaning of the symbol has not been officially declared, I'm just offering my own personal interpretation : that it signifies Putin's dream of a "New World Order", with Russia as the dominant political & military player.. Do you imagine a different reason for the symbol.? :smile:


Why did Germany invade Poland? :
Germany invaded Poland to regain lost territory and ultimately rule their neighbor to the east.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-invades-poland

Swastika symbolism :
However, in the early 20th century, various right-wing adherents of the so-called “völkisch” movement in Germany, a movement in large part dedicated to uncovering a romanticized and largely mythical German/“Aryan” past, adopted the swastika as a symbol.
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/swastika

Third Empire :
The Third Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

If you mean that a VP is a non-physical bit of mind stuff I disagree. The real and virtual particle are just as real — EugeneW

OK. I won't argue with you about your personal opinion, or that of a particle physicist. FWIW, in my opinion is there's an important difference between Objective Reality and Virtual Reality. When I look into a VR headset, I'm aware that what I'm seeing is a crude imitation of reality : an artificial model of reality. For me, that mental construct is a non-physical thought, not a physical thing. Similarly, a VP is an imaginary simulation of a real particle. :smile:

Virtual reality (VR) is a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality

Simulated :
1 : to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive : imitate.

Three years of graduate lab work (Cognitive Science / Psychology). Engineering projects and physics + chemistry lab work as an undergrad. Paralegal and mortgage underwriting work for decades (pre-pandemic). Left-Green political activism for decades (pre-9/11). I'd say I've been quite "mucky" in various ways ... — 180 Proof

As an untrained dilettante philosopher, I bow before your self-proclaimed Omniscience. But, I still don't appreciate your "dogmatic" (your word) True-Believer-in-Scientism shtick on this non-ideological forum. Most of us amateurs are well-informed about modern science in general, but we are not narrowly-focused specialists in any particular sub-field. So, our worldviews may be broader and more inclusive than yours. If that open-mindedness is what you call "woo", then woo-hoo give me a tattoo! :joke:

TPF Site Guidelines :
Types of posters who are welcome here:
Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions

Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Try considering "infinity" in this way Gnomon. It is a principle established for the purpose of allowing us to measure anything, or everything. There can be no quantity greater than what we can count, because we allow the numbers to continue indefinitely. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that sense, "Infinity" may be used in a similar manner to "Googolplex", or my tongue-in-cheek usage of "Zillions". :joke:

A googolplex is the number 10googol, or equivalently, 10(10100) or 1010,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 .

Zillions :
an extremely large number of people or things.

I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, — ssu

Oh, I didn't mean that the crossed "Z" of a swastika (symbol of German nationalism) was literally or consciously re-shaped into a symbol of Russian nationalism. But the resemblance is interesting. :wink:

JAPANESE TEMPLE SYMBOL

NATIONAL SOCIALISM (NAZI) SYMBOL

AMERICAN FASCIST SYMBOL

TRUMP CAMPAIGN LOGO

AMAZON SHIRT SYMBOL

Do you suppose people who recommend aporia (bafflement) as a healthy state of mind were conflating it with "awe and wonder". — Agent Smith

Maybe Einstein was a closet magician, pretending to be a mere scientist. He often attributed his curiosity about Nature to its inspiring "awe & wonder". But, instead of trading on occult mystery, he revealed the smoke & mirrors that had long concealed the underlying magic of reality. :cool:


One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."
___Albert Einstein

Nonsense. — 180 Proof

As usual, you missed the point of my description of what distinguishes Philosophy from Science. Some professional scientists with mucky hands, also do some philosophical speculation on the side. Apparently, you think that Philosophers should be required to present empirical evidence for their conjectures.

Do you consider yourself a Philosopher, perhaps an amateur like me? If so, what "mucky" physical experiments have you done? Do you tinker with real stuff in your basement? Or do you simply express personal opinions as Facts on forums? Do you simply quote the Scriptures of Science as evidence for your claims of what's Real, and what's not? :joke:


Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

It's been discussed a lot but I always say, never loose sight of its connection to Aristotle, for whom the term was coined. Otherwise metaphysics becomes a catch-all term for any kind of woo. — Wayfarer

Yes. For the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I typically define "metaphysics" in terms of the topics Aristotle discussed in the second volume of his treatise in Nature. There, he was not describing physical things, but ideas about things, or about Nature in general, including the human Mind and its Thoughts. Volume 1 was the primitive forerunner of modern Science, while volume 2 was the prescient ancestor of modern Philosophy. :smile:

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" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary

As for the Idea of infinity - residing in the world of Platonic Forms - I dunno what that would look like. What is the Form of infinity? — Agent Smith

I don't know that Plato had much to say about "infinity" per se.. But his Forms are essentially definitions of possible or potential things. So the Form of Infinity would be something like : 1. spacelessness, or 2. a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number. Anyway, I suppose "Infinity" would look like nothingness, but with the potential for something. :smile:

Plato on the Infinite :
Plato therefore will locate the infinite in the world of change, but since the world we experience is a dependent and deficient, ‘less real’, world, Plato can be seen to continue in the ancient Greek tradition of rejecting the actual or transcendent and fully real infinite.
https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/plato.html

Agree with your analysis, on the whole. — Wayfarer

"Whole" . . . "holistic" . . . I get it. :joke:

C S Pierce also included abductive reasoning - reasoning from effect to probable cause. But the issue is that underlying 'scientism' is 'positivism' - that being, in a loose sense, the view that science and mathematical extrapolations of empirical observations are the sole forms of valid knowledge. — Wayfarer

Sure. But Positivism was mainly concerned with weeding-out Metaphysics. And most of modern Philosophy falls in that non-physical category, by default. If it ain't physical, it's metaphysical (i.e. religious faith). Which is why many philosophers try to dissociate themselves from Scholastic Metaphysics. :cool:

Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.

Metaphysics :
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
PS___That's why I'm still searching for another simple term, besides "metaphysics" to distinguish the scope of Philosophy from that of Physical Sciences. So far, "non-physical" is a candidate. But even that discrimination seems to elicit negative reviews from those for whom "physical" means Real, and non-physical means un-real, hence non-existent. In what sense does Mind exist, if not as an illusory figment of imagination? It seems to be a no-win contest of perspectives. :sad:

↪Gnomon
Is it your position – extrapolating from Pinker's objection to Lakoff & Johnson's thesis ("metaphor") – that mind is disembodied? — 180 Proof

No. Just that non-physical Mind & physical Body are philosophically distinct concepts. The latter is subject to empirical investigation, but the former is subject only to theoretical exploration. Philosophers only do thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. You don't have to get your hands mucky.

The notion of a disembodied soul is a legitimate topic for philosophical discussion, but would be absurd for empirical dissection. Personally, I'm skeptical of ghosts & afterlife & reincarnation, but I'm willing to discuss such topics on an intellectual level, without eye-rolling. My interest would be why so many people with normal brains find the notion of disembodied Souls intuitively believable. :smile:

I find myself constantly in a state of aporia; I sometimes feel that I'm aporia manifested in the physical plane as a person, that's how utterly bewildering the world, the universe, is to me. — Agent Smith

Bafflement may be frustrating, but it can also be stimulating . . . . for those with a curious mind. :joke: