While I wouldn’t ever advocate the consumption of illegal substances I have no doubt that this particular class of substances do indeed open the doors of perception (insights which are of course impossible to communicate or even really remember on a conscious level). — Wayfarer

If or when "recreational" Marijuana becomes legal in my area, I may give it a try, just to see what I'm missing. Most of the other "street drugs" seem to do more harm than good. So, I'm not inclined to open those particular doors. My naive question is this : do the psycho-drugs actually or metaphorically open your perception to exotic realities or to warped hallucinations?

Glattfelder lists a wide variety of psychic experiences that are "real" to psychonauts : Synchronicity, ESP, Telepathy, Telekinesis, Clairvoyance, Mediumship, Presentiment, Psychic abilities, etc, that he deems worthy of scientific investigation. To explain their marginalization, he accuses scientists of have closed minds ; instead of having good reasons to avoid wasting time on subjective, non-empirical beliefs. And yet, in the last century, academically-trained Paranormal scientists & ghost-hunters have attempted to use empirical methods to study most of those “realities”, but their results have been generally un-reproducible*1, and have led to no practical uses, other than spooky entertainment*2. Therefore, like religious beliefs, such phantom “realities” seem to be a matter of faith, rather than science*3.

He says, "Although the boundaries of physical reality remain solid most of the time, there is not a priori reason radical modulations of sentience should not be able to puncture them momentarily". Does that assertion fit your understanding of the Mind Created World? He goes on to say, "this --- presumably, the fleeting temporariness of glimpses into other worlds --- would explain the difficulty in measuring and replicating such subtle and delicate effects accessible to the human mind only in moments of extreme modes of sentience." Besides, most of the plant-derived drugs may be natural, but their natural function is to kill or deter pests. So, using them to open doors to parallel worlds is un-natural. Can meditation open psychedelic doors?

He goes on to say, "this --- presumably, the fleeting temporariness of glimpses into other worlds --- would explain the difficulty in measuring and replicating such subtle and delicate effects accessible to the human mind only in moments of extreme modes of sentience." Quantum experiments are also fleeting and subject to biased interpretation, but they are reproducible and mathematical. On the other hand, most of the plant-derived psycho-drugs may be natural, but their natural function is to kill or deter pests. So, using insecticides and neuro-toxins to open doors to parallel worlds is literally un-natural. Is Buddhist meditation a safer option for timid psychonauts?

Apparently, the necessity for "radical modulations" --- that may lead to compulsive behavior and addiction, not to mention liver & heart disease & poisoning deaths --- makes other-worldly psycho-adventures just as dangerous as jungle & mountain explorations in mundane reality. Historically, ethyl alcohol (a mild neurotoxin) has been the most common & popular Affect Modulator. But it also modulates unacceptable social behaviors, that provoked wise King Solomon to denounce : "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" Proverbs 20:1. Since I am not, by nature, an adventurer, I leave exploits in other-worlds to highly-motivated others. From the sentient safety of my armchair, I know the “secret knowledge” of Amazon Indians --- e.g. ethnobotany --- only by second-hand National Geographic reports. :nerd:


*1. No, paranormal activity has not been scientifically proven;it is considered a pseudoscience by most scientists and academics because there is no conclusive empirical evidence to support its existence. Many experiences attributed to the paranormal have scientific explanations, such as psychological factors (like pareidolia or sleep paralysis), environmental factors (like infrasound or electromagnetic fields), or even misinterpretations of mundane phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=history+of+paranormal+research
Note --- "no conclusive evidence" is not for lack of trying. After centuries of optimistic efforts, Paranormal research is not mainstream, not necessarily due to prejudice, but to lack of corroboration and practical applications.

*2. Paranormal research originated in the 19th century with the spiritualism movement and the founding of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1882 to scientifically investigate spirits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=history+of+paranormal+research

*3. “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ____ Nikola Tesla,
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/139502-the-day-science-begins-to-study-non-physical-phenomena-it-will
Note --- Maybe Elon Musk will invest some of his Tesla profits into Mental, instead of Martial (Mars), exploration of other worlds.

The aim of this essay is to make the case for a type of philosophical idealism, which posits mind as foundational to the nature of existence. Idealism is usually distinguished from physicalism — the view that the physical is fundamental — and the related philosophical naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces, as depicted in the natural sciences, account for the universe. — Wayfarer

I'm still reading the voluminous 2025 book by James Glattfelder : The Sapient Cosmos, What a modern-day synthesis of science and philosophy teaches us about the emergence of information, consciousness, and meaning. It's an encyclopedia of current concepts of the Idealistic worldview. The book has chapters on cutting-edge science, such as Relativity, Quantum physics, Information theory, and Complexity science. But it also has chapters on Buddhism, Shamanic traditions, and Psychedelic adventures. So, the label for his worldview is Syncretic Idealism, which some interpret as "scientific spirituality"*1.
Syncretic : a combination, or mish-mash, of various schools of thought.

My personal background is mainly in the scientific aspects of the Mind Created World. But yours is much deeper in traditional Philosophy, including Buddhist insights on mind. So, the Shamanic & Psychedelic explorations in the mental world are exotic territory for me. Glattfelder calls those who experiment with mind-altering drugs : "Psychonauts". And he seems convinced that they are directly experiencing parallel realms of reality (Ideality???). He also thinks Near-Death experiences are previews of the afterlife. But those ideas about Idealism are hard for me to accept.

Today, I just read a quote from Richard Tarnas, historian and astrologer, that sounded reminiscent of your Mind-Created World : "The mind is not the passive reflector of an external world and its intrinsic order, but is active and creative in the process of perception and cognition. Reality is in some sense constructed by the mind, not simply perceived by it, and many such constructions are possible, none necessarily sovereign."

To me, that statement makes sense, insofar as Cognition is a construct, and Worldviews are personal models of reality. But the notion of opening The Doors of Perception*2 to alternate realities, that can be explored by "poisoning" the brain with serotonin agonists, that stimulate "non-ordinary mental states", and that skeptics call "hallucinations", does not compute.

In my profession as an architect, we built imaginary models of potential or possible buildings that do not exist yet in the real world. Although you may imagine yourself walking thru the atrium, the model is not intended to be interpreted as a hyper-real structure that you can inhabit with your disembodied Self/Soul.

Personally, my worldview is both Realistic (physical senses) and Idealistic (mental images)*3. But I'd like to hear from you, as the resident expert on traditional Idealism, what you think of Syncretic Idealism, as a synthesis of Science and Spirituality. Have you ever explored alternate Realities with a mind "cleansed" by entheogens? :smile:



*1. Syncretic idealism is a term used to explain the concept of scientific spirituality.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNukwNH0htX/

*2. Aldous Huxley :
Huxley used the phrase to describe his experiences with psychedelic drugs, which he felt temporarily "cleansed the doors of perception," allowing for a greater awareness of the world and human consciousness
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=doors+of+perception+quote

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
# This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The mental event/experience has no physical properties, so it cannot be detected nor affect reality. We, however, observe a fascinating relationship between mental events and the part of reality that we form them in; for example, I can type my thoughts. You cannot possibly explain this within physicalism or any form of monism, since you need two substances at least, the experiencer and the object of experience, to explain the experience. — MoK

Sounds like you are talking about Language as Materialized Thought*1. Meta-physical*2 ideas in an intellectual mind can be Realized by exporting Ideal thoughts into the Real world by means of physical sound waves (speech), or material ink on paper (writing), or digitized data (electronic signals). And the recipient (experiencer) can interpret those coded messages back into meta-physical Meanings, by means of physical-to-mental decoding events in the brain.

Hence, the communication process necessarily requires "two substances" : both Matter (object) & Mind (subject) ; concrete Physical & abstract Metaphysical. The Message has intermediate material effects, but the final effect (meaning) is Ideal, not Real. However, my thesis explains the whole cosmic system of Matter/Mind, Physical/Metaphysical, Real/Ideal, in terms of a hypothetical ultimate Monism : EnFormAction*3, the power to transform Potential to Ideal to Real, and vice versa. :smile:


*1. The phrase "language materialized thought" refers to the complex philosophical and linguistic concept that language is the physical manifestation of abstract thought. It is the process by which internal ideas, emotions, and concepts are given an external, tangible form, such as speech or writing, that can be perceived and shared by others.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+materialized+thought

*2. Meta-physical : theoretical, theoretic, abstract, conceptual, mental, spiritual, intellectual : i.e. non-physical.

*3. EnFormAction : similar to Schopenhauer's Will (power, force, energy) and Representation (mental experience, idea, Form, law, rule) combined into the directed causation process we call cosmic Evolution : one rule to rule them all. It's a Substance only in the sense of an Essence.

It seems, then, that before something is observed, everything exists—but only as possibility (superposition). 
We live in a vast field of potential outcomes that only become definite once we observe them — Jan

Philosophical Metaphors & Analogies :
Berkeley solved the observer problem by reference to an omniscient onlooker, who sees everything everywhere all the time. Hence, from the omnipotential superposition of all possible states (infinite Possibilities) --- the statistical state of Potential --- God selects what is Actual & Real, . But that is not an empirical scientific space-time model of reality. It's magic!

For us non-omnipotent observers, everything appears to be Real & Definite on the macro scale. But when scientists intrude on the micro-scale of quantum phenomena, everything turns to mush. The observers expect to see material Particles, but instead they see a fog of Superposition. And yet, the Act of observation seems to condense the fog into discrete drops*1. The mental Act seems to have physical impact.

How the probing mind could have physical effects is the Observation Problem. Schrodinger's equation (wavefunction) calculates the statistical probabilities of quantum particle paths. During superposition, the probability is near infinite (indefinite). After probing particles*2 are shot into the fog though, the probability collapses (condenses) from undefined to 100% (definite). But was it the energetic impact of the probing particle, or the extracted knowledge of position & velocity that "shocks the fog" into raindrops of reality?

Before & After states are not physical things, but mathematical concepts. In any case, the curiosity (desire) to know that "fog veiled" information seems be the proximate Cause of the transformation from Potential to Actual. No curiosity, no probe, no collapse. So, which is it : mind or matter that dispelled the statistical fog? I doubt that Idealists & Realists will ever agree on the relation between Ideal Consciousness and Real Events. :smile:


*1. "Fog shock condensation" refers to the formation of visible fog or a condensation cloud resulting from rapid pressure and temperature changes in a gas or liquid, often caused by a shock wave, and is a phenomenon seen in high-speed flight and other extreme conditions where super-saturated vapor cools and condenses into liquid droplets.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fog+shock+condensation

*2. A "quantum observation probe"is a specialized tool or technique used to gather information about a quantum system. Unlike classical probes, which can measure a system without affecting its properties, a quantum probe must contend with the fundamental quantum observer effect, where the act of measurement inevitably disturbs the system being observed. Researchers are developing methods to minimize this disturbance and enable new applications in quantum technology.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+observation+probe

I think it is the problem of the model, namely, physicalism, which is a monist model. You have this strange phenomenon, so-called the experience, that you cannot explain its existence. You also cannot explain how the experience can be causally efficacious, as well, given the fact that the experience is a mental event and the physical substances are causally closed. — MoK

Yes. In the worldviews of Materialism and Physicalism, subjective experience is indeed "strange" because scientists can't track an experience (feeling, sensation, image) back to its source via physical cause & effect evidence. A particular sensation (ouch!) seems to just emerge unbidden in the midst of the "flow" of energy from one material substrate to another. There is an inexplicable break in the causal chain, which Chalmers called the "Hard Problem" for empirical science.

The chain of causation transfers electro-chemical Energy from material object (neuron) to material object (synapse) until, suddenly & inexplicably, a new effect occurs that is neither electrical nor chemical, but personal. That novel effect is "strange" because it is subjective or holistic or systemic or metaphysical instead of objective or analytic or particular or physical. It's personal & subjective because no one else can feel what you feel. Or what a bat experiences.

Materialism and Physicalism are monistic*1 models in the sense that they deny any Substance other than Matter or Energy. My worldview is also a monism in that it postulates a single substance that is responsible for all physical and mental effects in the world. But in order to actualize, the monistic Singular Substance (Plato's abstract Form) must transform into Dual intermediate concrete sub-forms : Energy & Matter.

For example, Aristotle defined Substance (hylomorph) as a duality of "Matter" (pure potentiality) and "Form" (actuality). Obviously, his concept of Matter is different from the modern usage in that it is not-yet-real, it is un-formed (amorphous). And his Form (Intent) is the enformer (actualizer) of Potential. Only when ideal Potential is realized by some Cause does it become the real stuff we now call Matter. Ari's Matter is like malleable clay : formless until molded by the design intent of a sculptor. Hence, the Actualizer*2 of the sculpture is an idea (intention, image) in the mind of a man.

The Physicalist model is "causally closed" to immaterial substances like Ideas, Concepts, and Intentions. An Idealist model is open to the existence of non-empirical essences that transform into material substances. Bats are real, but nobody knows the inner essence of batness. :smile:



*1. Monism is the philosophical view that everything is ultimately a single kind of substance or reality, while physicalism is a specific type of monism that asserts this single reality is physical. In essence, a physicalist believes that all existing phenomena, including mental states, can be explained in terms of physical processes and matter, making the physical the only fundamental substance in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=monism+physicalism

*2. AMORPHOUS CLAY PRIOR TO ACTUALIZATION
by input of mental intention and manual energy

The physical substance cannot even cause a change in itself. I have a thread on this topic here. Therefore, the Mind sustains the physical substance (I have a thread on what the Mind is here).
By the way, I am wondering how such a thing as a physical substance that has no control over its movement at all, given the first argument in the first thread above, could be the cause of something that is intelligent, something that can freely decide, etc. what you call the mind. This is a bad model to work on since it has tons of problems and anomalies on the first side. Just accept the substance dualism at least, and you can describe how the physical substance moves. — MoK

I think you misunderstood my usage of the term "substance"*1. I was not talking about malleable Matter, but about Causal Energy. For modern scientists, Energy is defined as "ability" or "capability", but Aristotle called it "Potential", as contrasted with Actual, which is the form of frozen Energy we know as Matter (E=MC^2). Energy is physical only in the sense that it is the Dynamic (Causal) Force for the science of Physics. The "control" is provided by Natural Laws (principles ; regulations).

In my thesis, I suppose that Aristotle's Potential (power , ability , possibility), which I call EnFormAction*2 (power to transform), is not only the Causal Source of tangible Matter (hylomorph), but also of intangible Mind (intellect, nous, reason). I arrived at that conclusion from the scientific equation of Energy and Information*3. That equivalence is not yet established as a scientific fact, but it serves as a reasonable assumption for philosophical conjectures. The Triad of Energy-Matter-Information may sound strange, but I use it as an illustration of a difficult concept in my Information-centric thesis.

Exactly how the holistic complex of Energy + Matter + Information produces the effect in a material brain that we call "Intellect" or "Intelligence" or "consciousness" has not been completely worked out. But I think of Thinking & Reasoning as meta-physical processes, similar to the physical processes caused by inputs of Energy.

Although the scientists noted in the link below envisioned a triple-set, Descartes viewed the mind/body relationship as a duality of res extensa (matter) and res cogitans (thought). However, I imagine that our local duality or triality are merely manifestations of an ultimate universal Monism : EnFormAction : the power & program of the Big Bang Singularity, that provided the Cause & Laws of evolution, from which has emerged thinking & reasoning lumps of mobile matter that we now call philosophers & scientists. Note --- the ResearchGate image calls that triple aspect Monism : "Universal Substance".

Therefore, although we may not be on the same page, we seem to be on adjacent pages, regarding the question of how Consciousness could emerge in a Material world. :smile:

PS___ I guess my analysis of Consciousness is more scientific than Hegelian. :wink:


*1. In Aristotle's philosophy, a substance is the primary kind of being, an individual thing composed of matter (pure potentiality) and form (actuality). Potentiality is a thing's capacity to become something else, while actuality is the realization of that capacity. Every substance has the potentiality to develop its inherent capacities and achieve its specific purpose or telos, thus actualizing its form.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+potential+and+substance
Note --- Information, like Energy, is physical only in the sense that it produces physical effects in matter.

*2. EnFormAction :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals (potential) that become real (actual); “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*3. Is information energy or matter? :
The fundamental triad of energy/matter/information |
The concept of information as a physical element has been put forth by various researchers (Landauer, 1996;Stonier, 1990;Vopson, 2019;Wheeler, 1989). It is now considered as fundamental as well as matter and energy in the universe (Meijer, 2013; Stonier, 1996).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-fundamental-triad-of-energy-matter-information_fig1_275017053
Note --- ResearchGate image below. I don't agree with all of these labels. It's just an imaginary illustration of how Information relates to Energy and Matter.


THE hypothetical FUNDAMENTAL TRIAD
https://www.researchgate.net/about

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. — Gnomon
Who says that? — Patterner

Daniel Dennett, for one*1.

*1. The idea that "consciousness is magic" can refer to different concepts: some see consciousness as a literal, wondrous phenomenon that imbues the world with meaning and feeling, while others, like philosopher Daniel Dennett, use the metaphor of magic to describe how the brain creates an illusion of a unified, rich inner experience from complex, non-magical processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+is+magic

Sentient awareness refers to the capacity of a living being to feel, perceive, and be conscious of its surroundings and experiences, often implying an ability to suffer or experience pleasure, and is distinct from mere behavioral responsiveness or simulated intelligence. It involves an "inner experience" or subjective reality, which may be distinguished from "self-awareness" (knowing one is aware) or "sapience" (wisdom) — Gnomon
Isn't "inner experience" or "subjective reality" usually the definition of consciousness? — Patterner

Yes. But some alternative terms for Consciousness are : awareness, attention, mindfulness, knowledge, cognition, mind, observation, etc.

My point is that C is not a thing, but a process ; not a material substance, but a Function of a complex organism. Your cell phone is a complex mechanism, it processes a lot of information, and it performs several useful functions. But at the moment, it's AI functions have not reached the status of Personhood.
So, it is not Sentient or Aware of what it's doing. It's simply a mechanism.

One requirement for Sentient Awareness seems to be, not just complexity, but an integrated system of information processing, as postulated by Tononi's Integrated Information Theory*2. IIT is intended to be the kernel for a scientific theory, but at the moment, it's a philosophical conjecture. But I think it's pointing in the right direction.

Consciousness seems to require A> material complexity (entanglement ; feedback loops), B> systematic integration (Holism), and C> inherent Potential (power, ability, capacity) for "higher functions" such as Life & Mind. So, simple objects like Atoms or single cell organisms may have the Potential (Panpsychism), but they lack sufficient Complexity or Systematic Integration for awareness & intelligence. Hence, not Conscious, in the human sense. :smile:


*2. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is a scientific framework proposing that consciousness is a fundamental property of physical systems with the capacity to integrate information; it quantifies this capacity using a measure called Phi (Φ).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=integrated+information+theory

Consciousness, to me, is the ability of the mind, namely, the ability to experience, and it cannot be an emergent thing. . . . .
]The mind, to me, is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. The mind is not by byproduct of physical processes in the brain. — MoK

Yes. I agree that there is a fundamental "substance", in the Aristotelian sense, that eventually produced the Consciousness that we Sapiens take for granted. And Panpsychism is based on the assumption that Mind is fundamental to the Cosmos. But, I think that implies a much too broad definition of "the ability to experience". For me, Consciousness is not a "thing", but a process, a function.

Modern Cosmology portrays a universe with no sign of Life or Mind for over 10 billion years of evolution. Only in the last few billion years, has Life emerged as single cells with crude senses for finding food. Billions of years later, the entities we call animals, evolved along with more sophisticated sensory apparatus, that eventually became controlled by brains. However, it's only in the last few thousand years that animals with big brains emerged with sufficient complexity to produce the talent that we humans experience as Self-Consciousness. We know what it's like to be human, but "what it's like to be a bat" is still a mystery. We can't see or touch the substance of Consciousness, we can only infer it's existence by means of the very subject of our investigation : the mental tool of Reason.

Based on current developments in science (complexity, information, etc), I have concluded that Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon & noumenon. Hence the "ability to experience" was absent from the Big Bang event, and from the expanding universe for about 90% of the evolutionary period to date. The human era, with Consciousness as-we-know-it-and-experience-it, it has existed for only about 2% of Cosmic time.

But the Big Bang was powered by Energy (causation) and Information (natural laws) from the beginning of space-time. And my name for that original Substance (form + matter) is what I call EnFormAction*1. A term I coined to contrast with Shannon's negative definition of Information in terms of dissipating Entropy. EFA is equivalent to what Schrodinger coined, in his book What is Life?, as Negentropy : positive causation. In my thesis, EFA is the fundamental substance, from which Life & Mind evolved, and Emerged.

So, Consciousness may have been present at the beginning, in the form of Potential. But that creative power only fulfilled its promise after eons of "physical processes". Perhaps, not a "byproduct", but definitely a long-delayed Effect of cosmic Causation. :smile:


*1. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note --- The evolutionary unfolding of that original Potential may be what some call Panpsychism : EFA (Energy & Form) is everywhere forever.

Mental phenomena, to me, are divided into strong and weak emergence as well. The example of weak emergence is perception, and the example of strong emergence is creating an idea. — MoK

Yes, creative Ideas are considered to be emergent*1 in that they present a novel or unique perspective on an old problem that, presumably, no one has thought of before. But the emergence of Consciousness in a material world is more challenging to empirical scientists because Sentient Awareness*2 is not an empirical Property, but a philosophical Quality, that includes the power to generate mental images & ideas. We can't trace a lineage of cause & effect leading up to an entity that not only senses its environment (like a plant), but knows that it knows. That self-knowledge is limited to "higher" animals. And, as far as we know, only homo sapiens is able to both imagine abstract ideas, and to communicate them in language.

However, I was taking a different approach to the notion of Emergence, by bringing in the Aristotelian concept of Potential and the modern science of Complexity. Routine physical Cause & Effect*3 is an example of Weak Emergence : the emergent Effect is simply the final state in a chain of causation. For example, the amazing collective patterns created on the fly by thousands of birds, seemingly acting as a single organism. In principle, scientists could trace the complex interactions from single bird to "murmuration" {image below}, but in practice it would be very difficult to collect & analyze the data.

Moreover, Strong Emergence implies that some unpredictable novel property is manifested, not just in localized group behavior, but in the specialized talent of a single species for abstracting ideas (imaginary information) from concrete reality. Emergence of novelty from complexity seems to be inherent in the evolutionary process. But modern science has only recently developed mathematical techniques & computer programs for analyzing & understanding non-linear systems, that defy traditional reductionist methods.

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. I suspect that Mind only seems like Magic, due to our inability to comprehend functions & effects that arise from the most complex structure in the universe : the human brain. Personally, I think a key to understanding the Consciousness Effect will be found in the equation of Information (meaning) and Energy (causation) along with the notion of Potential (latent causal power). And that's the topic of my thesis*4. :nerd:


*1. Yes, new and complex ideas are often considered emergent, meaning they arise from the interaction of simpler parts or processes in a system and possess novel qualities that are not inherent in those individual components. This concept applies to creativity, where ideas can surface from actions, experiences, and contexts, transforming from unarticulated "know-how" into conceptual "know-what". Emergence also refers to phenomena that arise from complex systems, such as consciousness from the brain, which cannot be fully understood by examining its simpler constituents alone.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+ideas+emergent

*2. Sentient awareness refers to the capacity of a living being to feel, perceive, and be conscious of its surroundings and experiences, often implying an ability to suffer or experience pleasure, and is distinct from mere behavioral responsiveness or simulated intelligence. It involves an "inner experience" or subjective reality, which may be distinguished from "self-awareness" (knowing one is aware) or "sapience" (wisdom)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sentient+awareness

*3. Cause and effect emergence refers to phenomena where macro-level patterns and behaviors arise from the interactions of many micro-level components, leading to outcomes that are qualitatively novel and cannot be predicted by examining the components in isolation. While simple cause-and-effect relationships involve one event directly preceding and influencing another, emergent cause-and-effect involves collective interactions creating new, unexpected patterns. This concept is explored in causal emergence theory, which uses mathematical frameworks from information theory and network science to study these complex relationships in systems like the brain, ant colonies, and starling murmurations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cause+and+effect+emergence

*4. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
Note --- Life & Mind are emergent, not miraculous

STARLINGS SCULPTING A SELF-IMAGE

Granting these assumptions means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only avalaible properties are the properties of parts though. Therefore, the property of such a system is a function of the properties of the parts. Therefore, we are not dealing with strong emergence in the case of consciousness. — MoK

This argument works from the perspective of Physics. But, in Aristotle's Meta-Physics, he introduces the non-physical notions of Potentiality & Actuality*1, Form & Matter, Essence & Substance. Hence, the Function of a System is non-physical, even though the parts are material items. It's a mathematical input/output relationship that you can't see, but can infer as purpose or meaning.

Function*2 is what a system does : the output or usefulness or purpose of the process. And the collective Function of a zillion neurons (Mind) is an Emergent property of the aggregated (integrated) parts, in the sense that the separate parts do not possess the Property of Consciousness. An example of physical-to-metaphysical Emergence is Abiogenesis : the otherwise inexplicable process we call "Life" displayed by interactive amalgamations of inert material bits : a complex System.

So, one explanation for the eventual Emergence of Life & Mind from a mass of protoplasm --- water, ions, amino acids, and monosaccarides --- is that those simpler material components possessed un-actualized Potential*3 that became Actual Life & Mind processes when combined into a complex organization. And one kind of Potential Actualizer is the physical-but-immaterial activity we call "Energy"*4. Therefore, the material components of a system are activated by inputs of a Causal Force, which by itself is neither Mental nor Vital.

The emergence of Life & Mind only after billions of years of evolution implies that it takes many rolls of the dice to hit upon the right combination to open the vault of Biology and Psychology*5. And no combination of parts would do the trick, if the Potential was not there all along. :smile:



*1. For Aristotle, a substance is a thing's essential nature, understood through the interplay of potentiality (its capacity to become something else) and actuality (what it currently is). Each substance consists of both potentiality (its matter) and actuality (its form).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

*2. Function is what a system does, especially its purpose within an environment, while emergence is the process by which novel properties or behaviors arise in a system from the interactions of its parts, properties that cannot be predicted or understood from the parts in isolation. Essentially, emergence describes how a system achieves a function through its integrated components, creating a whole with new characteristics that are more than the sum of its parts, such as the coordinated movement of a car (function) emerging from the interactions of its engine, wheels, and other components.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=function+and+emergence

*3. Potential : latent (hidden) properties or qualities that are capable of emerging when combined into an organized (enformed) system.
Note --- One way to understand Potential is : the combination that unlocks Actual.

*4.Yes, in a fundamental physics sense, energy can be considered immaterial or non-material because it does not have mass and does not take up space, unlike matter. Energy is better understood as an abstract property or quantity associated with matter and systems, representing the ability to do work or bring about change, rather than a tangible substance itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+immaterial

*5. The probability of life arising from non-life, a process called abiogenesis, is incredibly low when considered as a random event, with estimates of probabilities for complex molecules like proteins ranging from 1 in 10^40,000 to 1 in 10^251, and higher for a whole cell.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=probability+of+life+from+non-life

You've misread your own reference. sure, mēns (“mind”) is from PIE *men- (“to think”), but mensūra (“to measure”) is form from PIE *meh₁- (“to measure”).
Measure dervives from Meh, not Mens. — Banno

I didn't misread the reference, I just focused on the parts that were pertinent to my post :
Mensura = to measure ; Mens- = mind*1*2
A yardstick can provide a comparison, but only a Mind can measure the meaning : to interpret.

Hence, In the quantum context, I infer that "to measure" is to extract information (meaning) into a Mind (observer). Which sheds light on the Quantum Measurement Problem, regarding the cause of the "collapse" of holistic entanglement into particular particles. A machine can obtain mathematical (probability) information about an experiment. But only the conscious experimenter can interpret its Meaning. Collapse (disintegration) happens when energy is extracted by the machine. like a cue ball hitting the neatly-stacked billiard balls. But the Event is only known when the bits of energy/information are interpreted into meaning.

Since scientists are now equating Information with Energy*3, I imagine (philosophical conjecture) that what is extracted from an entangled (interactive) system is a quantum of potential Energy (photon or gluon), which may serve as a keystone, holding the system together. By contrast, Entropy pulls the plug on a system to break it down into isolated parts. Shannon noted that Information is negatively measured in terms of meaningless Entropy*4.

Probability & Potential are not a real things ; they are ideas that are meaningful only to conscious minds. Only when they become Actual does a meaningful Event happen. Consciousness & Events go together like things that are similar. :smile:


*1. The English phrase "to measure" ultimately derives from the Latin verb metiri ("to measure"), which comes from the Proto-Indo-European root me- ("to measure"). The word entered English via the Old French verb mesurer, which was derived from the Latin noun mensura ("a measurement"), the past participle of metiri.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22to+measure%22+etymology

*2. In Latin, "mens" refers to "mind," "intellect," or "plan," as seen in the legal term mens rea (guilty mind) and the English words "mental" or "dementia". It is a feminine noun belonging to the third declension, with the genitive form mentis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+%22mens-%22

*3. Is information matter or energy? :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are. Operationally--just as energy is defined in terms of its capacity to perform work--so is information defined in terms of its capacity to organize a system.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

*4.In information theory, entropy (H) is a measure of the average uncertainty or randomness associated with a random variable or process. It quantifies the expected amount of information needed to describe the outcome of a random event, with higher entropy indicating greater uncertainty and more information required to specify the outcome. The unit of entropy is the bit, and it is calculated as the weighted average of the information content of each possible outcome, where the information content of an outcome is inversely related to its probability.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+entropy

Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time. — Wayfarer

Someone raised the question above : "what is a measurement?" The English word "measure" comes from Latin "mensura', and mensura derives from the root "mens-" meaning Mind*1. So, one sense of measurement is "to extract information into a mind". To "take the measure of something" is to convert the perceived object into a mental representation of the object : an idea or concept. Hence, metaphorically, some physical properties of the object are replicated in meta-physical (mental) images (ideas). Therefore, a particle of matter can impact another particle, but only a Mind can measure the meaning of that collision in terms of values & properties. A yardstick cannot measure anything in the absence of an interpreting mind.

The Quantum Measurement Problem*2 seems to be similar to Bergson's Clock. Mechanisms move one tick at a time, but humans measure Time as duration : the space between ticks. Hence, for 10 billion solar years, the expanding universe ticked along, with no one to measure that change in terms of duration (Time) or expansion (space) or importance (events). Do animals have a mental concept of Time, over & above the circadian rhythms of their bodies? Humans seem to feel time as flowing, but measure it in discrete increments : ticks of a mechanical clock or sub-atomic quanta. So, time is not a physical thing, but merely an on-going process of observed events that we experience as continuous, but measure as quantified. :smile:


*1. The measuring mind : The Latin word for "mind" is mens, not "mensura". "Mensura" is a separate Latin word meaning "measure".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+word+for+%22mind%22+mensura

*2. The quantum measurement problem is a foundational question in quantum mechanics concerning the apparent contradiction between a quantum system's deterministic evolution (as described by the Schrödinger equation) and the probabilistic "collapse" of its state into a single outcome upon measurement.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+measurement+problem

*3. Time is widely understood as a continuous flow of existence and events, progressing irreversibly from past to future, and is a fundamental aspect of reality as described by both physics and philosophy. While a continuous and divisible flow is the dominant view, particularly in how we experience it, the nature of time at the most fundamental, quantum level is still an area of debate, with some physicists suggesting a discrete model might be necessary to fully reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Is+Time+a+series+of+isolated+events%2C+or+a+continuous+flow+of+change%3F

Idealism has a great deal of difficulty avoiding solipsism. — Banno
At least your version of it does. — Wayfarer

Solipsism is self-centered. Each observer of the environment is a Self (knowing mind), and has a self-centered perspective. But, for scientific purposes, we compare our selfish worldviews in order to average-out the differences, and to discover the most common description or interpretation of the thing observed : Objective instead of Subjective*4.

In the Embarassing Graph article linked above, "The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement". Even so, the most "popular" interpretation of spooky Quantum Physics is the one that is most like Magic : Probabilistic Copenhagen (42%) : events happen that can't be explained in classical deterministic mechanical terms. Second most popular is mind-centered Information-Theoretical (24%). And farther down the list is belief-centered Quantum-Bayesianism (6%). So, most scientists seem to agree that something funny*5 (non-mechanical) is going on, that can seem magical or mundane, depending on the observer's worldview .

A scientist's sensory perceptions and machine data are empirical, but their measurements and interpretations are theory-laden. That's why we can argue in opposite directions from the same evidence. Likewise, physical events are real & empirical, but conscious ideas about those events are ideal & hypothetical (speculative). :nerd:


*4. Scientific objectivity is the principle that scientific claims, methods, and results should be free from personal biases, value judgments, community bias, and personal interests, aiming to accurately reflect the facts of the world. It involves focusing on evidence and proven facts, minimizing irrational emotions, and striving for neutrality and accuracy in research. While an ideal, achieving perfect objectivity is challenging, as scientists are influenced by their perspectives, culture, and the broader scientific community.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientific+objectivity

*5. The "magic" in the Copenhagen Interpretation refers to the seemingly inexplicable process of wave function collapse, where a quantum system's indeterminate probabilities resolve into a single, definite outcome upon measurement. Critics, including Schrödinger, found this abrupt, probabilistic change, which lacks a clear physical mechanism, to be "magical" and a weakness of the interpretation. For them, it introduces randomness and a lack of determinism that is contrary to classical physics, forcing an acceptance of an unanalyzable cause for the wave function's collapse.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+magic

C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists — Jan

Jung seems to be saying that I personally create the reality I see. But I don't consciously or intentionally create my environment, I just passively (instinctively) accept it as a given, and interpret the incoming bits of energy as information signals from a non-self Reality. So, Epistemological Idealism doesn't make sense to me. The other varieties of Idealism : Subjective ; Objective ; Absolute ; Constitutive ; and Transcendental ; appear to be grasping at straws.

Only the Transcendental makes some Ontological sense --- in view of the Big Bang theory --- but then we have the problem of postulating an imaginary out-of-this-world Source of the incoming Information (Ideas) we interpret as Real. I don't flatly reject the God hypothesis, even though I have no personal experience to confirm it. Therefore, as an amateur philosopher, while I entertain the hypothetical notion of Idealism, for practical purposes I assume that there is a real material world out there, which is not a creation of my feeble imagination. :smile:

Wow, that is delicious. I have a big problem with binary thinking. I did not know that holistic thinking is being practiced by some scientists. That makes me hopeful. — Athena

Modern Holistic thinking began in the 20th century along with Quantum physics : entanglement is holistic. But most scientists avoid the term "holism" due to its association with New Age "nuts". Other related terms are Cybernetics (control & communication in complex systems) ; General Systems Theory (interrelated parts that work together as a whole) ; Complexity Theory (systems that are too complicated to understand by analysis into parts) ; Emergence (novel features of whole systems that are not found in the parts) ; Synthesis (combining isolated elements into interrelated systems) ; Synergy (energetic interaction to produce an effect that is more than the sum of parts).

You might be interested in the book that introduced that New-Agey term : Holism and Evolution*1. As the title implies, it was focused mainly on evolutionary mysteries, such as how Life & Mind emerged from the muck of a nascent planet. It inspired Hippies & meditators of the 1960s with hope for a new Age of Aquarius. The holistic god-concept of New-Agers was an impersonal, cosmic life force or consciousness that is one with the universe. Disclaimer : despite some accusations, I am not now, and never have been a New Age hippie.

Another book that is more focused on Consciousness & god-concepts is The Sapient Cosmos by James B. Glattfelder : a thick encyclopedic book "that synthesizes modern science and philosophy to explore the emergence of information, consciousness, and meaning in the universe". It's intended for intelligent laymen, but includes a lot of technical stuff that you may not be interested in. However, it has chapters on "woo-woo" Shamanic traditions and Psychedelic cultures, that may be more appealing to you.

I, personally, have no experience with mind-altering substances, or out-of-body experiences. So my interest was more in the Holistic philosophical worldview, summarized as Syncretic Idealism : "a novel philosophical proposition that merges various idealist philosophies with insights from information theory and physics, while also integrating concepts from other belief systems like shamanism to create a unified, non-isolating worldview about the nature of reality, consciousness, and existence". :smile:


*1. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things. . . . .
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

However, I am not sure that the energy from the moment of the Big Bang is not also a unifying energy evolving into self-consciousness. — Athena

That double negative indicates non-dogmatic uncertainty and moderate skepticism. I too, am uncertain about The Hard Problem of Consciousness, because the (yes/no) empirical & reductionist scientific method is inadequate to the task of objectively observing the subjective (self-conscious) observer. Yet some scientists & philosophers are using holistic (both/and) methods to make sense of the simplicity in complexity, and the order in chaos*1*2. They hope to shed light on the mystery of how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of matter.

I too have developed a philosophical theory, based primarily on Information Science (Complexity, Systems, Holism, etc). It postulates that the "unifying energy" of evolution is a combination of Information (direction) and Causation (Energy) : like a guided missile instead of an aimless bomb. It's not Deterministic (absolute certainty), but Probabilistic (optional). The theory has little to do with proving the existence of God. But it does point toward the the necessity of a First Cause/Prime Mover/Programmer of some kind to light the fuse of the Big Bang bomb. :smile:


*1. From Matter to Life: Information and Causality is a 2017 edited collection of essays by experts in various fields, including physics, biology, chemistry, and philosophy, exploring the role of information in the transition from non-living matter to life.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=from+matter+to+life

*2. Information and the Nature of Reality :From Physics to Metaphysics is an edited collection of essays by scientists, philosophers, and theologians, published by Cambridge University Press in 2010 and reissued as a Canto Classic in 2014. Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen, the book explores the growing importance of information as a fundamental concept in understanding the universe, moving beyond traditional views of mass and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+the+nature+of+reality

*3. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Postulates that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

I just wish to add that I am raising the debate over some analysis of the debate between theism and atheism. However, I do see it in the context of the wide range of philosophy perspectives historically and geographically. In this respect, I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed. — Jack Cummins

If pressed, I don't label myself as Theist or Atheist, but as Deist*1. That's because I am uncertain & ambivalent about God, but convinced that some transcendent creative power is necessary to make sense of our contingent world. Deism is not a religion, but a philosophical position*1. Regarding who or what created the Cosmos, all I know is that empirical cosmological knowledge only goes back to the black box known as the Big Bang Singularity. Any information prior to the beginning of space-time is pure speculation, based on hypothetical reasoning, not empirical observation. If you don't care about such perennial philosophical questions as First Cause & Prime Mover though, then peace be unto you.

I am not a Pantheist or Panpsychist, but I do postulate an alternative Pan-power : Energy, or as I like to call it : EnFormAction*2. In that view, the creative power to transform is universal, and responsible for all developments since the initial Bang. Whitehead's Process philosophy*3 also presumes some kind of universal directional causal power to explain complexifying evolution sparked by the Bang. But he didn't call it Panpsychism ; others added that label. In the quote below, "matter and experience" may be similar to Aristotle's Hylomorph (matter + form).

Since Matter is subject to the degradation of Entropy though, it cannot be eternal, but Form is an abstract mental/mathematical concept that is not subject to thermodynamics. So, the power to create and transform matter may be the transcendent force that is necessary to explain the Big Bang. What would you call the Source of that Cosmic Causation? And in what sense could it exist prior to the emergence of space-time? :smile:


*1. Deism is the philosophical belief in a creator God who established the universe and its natural laws but does not intervene in its ongoing affairs, particularly human events. Deists rely on human reason and the observation of nature, rather than divine revelation or religious scriptures, to understand the divine. This belief system, prominent during the Enlightenment, views God as a supreme architect or "divine clockmaker" who created the world and then left it to operate on its own.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deism+philosophical+position+on+god

*2. EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- EFA is similar to Schopenhauer's Will to survive (biological evolution), and to Nietzche's Will to power (physical Energy), and to Bergson's Vital Energy (self organization). Matter is made of Energy, but what is Energy made of????

*3. Alfred North Whitehead developed a form of process panpsychism, a philosophy suggesting that all reality is composed of fundamental "actual occasions" with both mental and physical aspects, rather than inert material objects. This process-relational view holds that everything, from quanta to galaxies, has a "subjective" or experiential "inside" and an objective, physical "outside". He didn't use the term "panpsychism" himself but argued for a system where matter and experience are equally fundamental, with matter as the objective pole and mind as the subjective pole of these underlying actual entities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=alfred+north+whitehead+panpsychism
Note --- Whitehead's term "experience" may be misleading. I think it's more like Wheeler's "bit" of Information.

Hoffman uses mathematical models to explore how spacetime and physical laws can emerge from these dynamics of conscious agents. — Gnomon
Thanks for reminding me just how much of a crackpot he is. — apokrisis

Yes. From a Materialistic perspective, Hoffman is a heretical thinker, like Immanuel Kant, postulating a veiled noumenal reality (ding an sich) underlying the obvious phenomenal appearances of the physical senses. :smile:


Yes, Immanuel Kant is considered a profoundly important and influential thinker, often regarded as one of the greatest and most significant philosophers of all time.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=kant+important+thinker

Yes, Donald Hoffman is considered an important thinker for his work as a cognitive scientist and popular science author who has challenged the scientific consensus on perception and reality,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=don+hoffman+important+thinker

This is metaphysics we are talking about. Substance is a claim about what “stands under”. And ontologically that is usually regarded as a stuff. A passive and stable material that can be worked up into an unlimited variety of forms.
. — apokrisis

That "passive & stable" stuff is indeed the fundamental substance of Ontological Materialism. But Aristotle defined his "Ousia" in terms of two elements : real Matter & ideal Form*1. Modern quantum physics concludes that active & dynamic Information (power to enform) is the essence of Matter*2. Shannon's "passive & stable" Information (data) has been found to also be active & causal (form giving), hence equated with Energy : E = MC^2.

My previous post linked to a book : Information is Energy. And. that creative-power-to-change-Form is the opposite of deforming Entropy*3. So, it seems that Aristotle was ahead of his time, to combine Matter (passive & stable) with Energy (power to transform). So, Matter (marble) is inert until it is given Form (sculpture) by its enforming Essence*4 (idea , concept), in the mind of the sculptor. Working together, inert Matter & causal Information (EnFormAction) are the System we call Evolution. Unfortunately, the metaphysics of Materialism ignores the active, causal half of the equation of Substance. :smile:

Note--- " be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you . . ."
Greek Apokrisis = answer

*1. Fundamental Substance :
In Aristotle's philosophy, substance (ousia) refers to the fundamental, individual entities that exist independently and are the subjects of predication. It's a central concept in his metaphysics, distinguishing between primary substances (individual things) and secondary substances (species and genera). Furthermore, Aristotle connects substance with matter and form, suggesting that all physical things are composed of these two elements
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+substance

*2. Information is Fundamental :
Information is more than just a description of our universe and the stuff in it: it is the most basic currency of existence.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

*3. Information is a Process :
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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. Marble is the raw material, but the sculptor's concept of Form gives it meaning

I was also interested in the ideas of Whitehead, as described to me by Gnomon in my recent thread on panpsychism. This involves an emphasis on the transcendent and the imminent as processes. There is nature but does anything exist beyond this, as source.

Generally, I am interested in comparative worldviews, especially Buddhism, which does not believe in a specific deity, but allows for some kind of transcendent levels of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

I am currently reading a voluminous book written by a quantitative scientist, James Glattfelder : The Sentient Cosmos, which he labels a "synthesis of science and philosophy". About half the book is about immanent & empirical topics, and the other half are transcendent & theoretical : what would call woo-woo, based on his prejudice against the notion of transcendence. Apparently, his non-transcendent religion is Scientism. But, philosophers, such as Whitehead, do not limit their philosophical explorations to the material world, or to empirical methods.

Glattfelder seems to be amenable to Panpsychism, but he tends to avoid the fraught term "God", and substitutes more ambiguous terms such as "Source", "One", "intelligence", etc. Personally, I don't agree with his top-down notion of the the human brain as a kind of receiver tuned-in to the wavelengths of the Cosmic Consciousness. But, he is an extremely well-informed scientist, mathematician, and philosopher. So, I hear him out. And I'm learning a lot about various historical & modern attempts to understand where the immanent world came from, and why it is as it is, and how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of atoms. :smile:

PS___ Comparative Religion : Glattfelder also discusses an array of ancient & recent attempts to understand the place of Man in a material world : Shamanism, Hinduism (Brahman/Atman), Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Kabbalah, Christianity, Sufism, Sikhism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, etc. This variety could be confusing, but he finds a common theme among them. I am not religious in any sense, but I am philosophical. And a broad knowledge of philosophical concepts provides a time-tested foundation for your personal worldview.

The mind and the world are both owed proper scientific accounts. Hoffman’s idealism doesn’t have anything help here. — apokrisis

Hoffman is a cognitive scientist, and Systems such as Mind are cognitive concepts (ideas). Do you also consider Nobel-winning quantum theorists, such as Planck & Heisenberg, to be unhelpful, when they make non-empirical philosophical conjectures? :smile:


Donald Hoffman's theories, such as the Interface Theory of Perception and Conscious Realism, are not considered mainstream science, though he holds an established academic position and has conducted empirical research on visual perception. While his work incorporates scientific concepts and mathematical models to support philosophical claims about reality and consciousness, critics argue that much of his philosophy is metaphysical and unverifiable, lacking the falsifiability required for a scientific theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+donald+hoffman%27s+theory+scientific


Donald Hoffman's work represents a contemporary take on idealism, known as Conscious Realism, which posits that consciousness is the fundamental reality, and the physical world is an emergent property of interacting conscious agents, not the other way around. His theory centers on his Interface Theory of Perception (ITP), which, supported by the Fitness Beats Truth (FBT) Theorem, suggests our perceptions are "icons" that don't resemble objective reality but are rather adapted for evolutionary fitness, with reality being a deeper network of conscious agents. Hoffman uses mathematical models to explore how spacetime and physical laws can emerge from these dynamics of conscious agents.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=donald+hoffman+idealism

I plainly said that information and entropy are just mathematical systems of measurement. They don’t tell us about informing or entropifying as real world processes. So the issue is about the how. You coined a term that suggest some general systems theory arises to cover this. But then the hand-waving begins. You speak as if information and energy are substantial things - like forces of nature - and so they just “do it”. Nuff said. — apokrisis

Information & Energy are the processes that make the Culture & Nature systems do what they do. If you don't think that is "substantial", then you won't understand the point of the Enformationism thesis. :smile:


Substantial : of considerable importance, size, or worth. ___ Oxford Dictionary

As epistemology, his point is mundane. As an ontological commitment, it makes the usual idealist mistake. . . .
But idealism fails to replace reductionism with anything better. — apokrisis

That assessment misses the point of Hoffman's thesis, and my own Information-centered worldview : not to "replace" pragmatic Reductionism, but to supplement it with philosophical Holism. Narrowly-focused Reductionism takes an Either/Or (true/false, black/white) stance, while the broader Enformationism worldview is BothAnd (Holistic, Complementary, YinYang).

Likewise, Hoffman's Idealism (Conscious Realism) is a moderate stance, between pure Platonic Idealism and modern absolute Materialism. Extreme forms of Idealism assert that we have no access to true or ultimate Reality. In that case, we would be completely in the dark. But, Hoffman describes a Veiled Reality, in which we do have some contact with Fundamental Essences, by means of the embodied Information that he calls "icons" (signs, symbols, semiology).

It's still true that we humans have no direct access to Kant's "ding an sich", or what d'Espagnat labeled "reality per se". So, Hoffman's Ontology describes Matter as a "useful fiction". In which case, we are not completely cut-off from ultimate Reality, because we can interface by means of ideas & information. :smile:

PS___ What is a System? : Semiotics is the systematic study of interpretation, meaning-making, semiosis and the communication of meaning. In semiotics, a sign is defined as anything that communicates intentional and unintentional meaning or feelings to the sign's interpreter. ___ Wiki


Donald Hoffman's "idealism," more formally known as his Conscious Realism, posits that consciousness is fundamental, not matter, and that what we perceive as physical objects are "icons" or user interfaces designed by interacting conscious agents. He argues that spacetime and physical objects emerge from the dynamics of these agents, not the other way around. While sharing similarities with philosophical idealism, Hoffman's approach is distinct due to its emphasis on integrating mathematical structures beyond spacetime and its foundation in what he calls a "deeper theory of conscious agents"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=donald+hoffman+idealism

Donald Hoffman's ontology, outlined in his theory of Conscious Realism, posits that consciousness and conscious agents are fundamental, and that the physical world, including spacetime, matter, and neurons, are not foundational but rather are emergent, useful fictions or a "user interface" to a deeper reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=donald+hoffman+ontology

But you had to invent your own term to turn information back into informing. So you clearly can see there is an issue to be sorted. — apokrisis

I did coin a novel term, EnFormAction, for my thesis, to indicate the equation of Information & Energy*1. But I didn't "invent" the physical interrelationship*2. Shannon defined information in terms of Entropy, but didn't pursue its reciprocal relation to Energy*3. Other scientists and philosophers in recent years have been exploring that connection between Causation & Life & Mind*4. So no, the equation of Causal Energy and Mental Information is not a figment of my imagination. Is that the "issue" you feel needs to be sorted? :cool:


*1. Information is Energy :
Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*2. The statement "information is energy" reflects a physical interpretation where information requires energy to be stored or transmitted, and conversely, information can be used to extract energy from a system, as seen in Maxwell's demon experiments, though information and energy are distinct concepts. While not identical, they are deeply connected, with some theories proposing an information-energy equivalence where information acts as a fundamental component of reality, much like matter and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy

*3. Information-energy equivalence suggests that information has mass, which is supported by Landauer's principle stating that information is physical and has an associated energy cost when erased, and by the emerging Mass-Energy-Information (MEI) equivalence principle. The MEI principle claims that stored information has mass and can be converted to energy, leading to a full hard drive being marginally heavier than an empty one. While information is not a new state of matter, this principle allows for the physical storage and energetic manipulation of information, with potentially transformative implications for quantum computing and our understanding of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+energy+equivalence

*4. From Matter to Life: 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.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

My problem with this is it lapses into substance ontology which is reductionist. An ontology of stuffs rather than of processes or the holism of systems of self-stabilising interaction. . . .
If we are using physical jargon, then entropy-information is a good dichotomy but also locks us into an ontology of substance rather than process. — apokrisis

I don't understand that assessment. Energy & Entropy are Processes, not substances. Information --- or EnFormAction, as I like to spell it --- is also a process. Systems are mental concepts that categorize collections of interacting "stuffs" as-if unitary things. Which, as Organized Structures, we tend to think of as single substantial objects. So, I view Holism/Systems as an Ontology of Processes (causation ; change) instead of stable-but-malleable Matter.

If you agree with Donald Hoffman's Interface Theory*1, even Matter is a conscious construct, that humans use to guide their physical interactions with the world. Another way to look at Ontology is to view the Real World as a multilevel system of acting & reacting sub-systems. We physically "see" a superficial layer of reality, like "icons" on a computer screen. But lower, more fundamental, layers are where the action is. And, what we call Systems, are mostly interactions on the lower levels of reality. Our idea of a System*2 is based on our ability to conceive of invisible-intangible extra-sensory qualia --- "more than the sum" of material parts --- that makes it a Holistic concept.

That's an Idealistic philosophical approach, but for practical purposes, common-sense (science) may be a better guide to dealing with Reality. :smile:


*1. Matter in Mind :
Donald Hoffman argues that matter is not a fundamental aspect of reality but rather a symbolic representation or "icon" constructed by consciousness, similar to icons on a computer interface. In his theory of conscious realism, he posits that consciousness is the fundamental reality, and the physical world, including matter and spacetime, emerges from a network of conscious agents. Matter, in this view, doesn't exist independently of consciousness but is a useful, though not literal, construct for interacting with the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=don+hoffman+on+matter

*2. Systems Theory :
A system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. More parts, means more interrelationships, and more complex properties & activities, including mental functions.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

This leads to the conclusion that a system, in our everyday understanding, is a conscious construct. Outside of our cognition, there can't be a separate system apart from other systems. — Astorre

Does this mean that Systems only exist for rational observers? Does a bear have a "conscious construct" of the forest he defecates in, or just the sensory observation of tree A, B, C, etc? Much of the disputation on this forum is about the reality & importance of individual things (Matter) versus our human tendency & ability to categorize real things into ideal aggregations & hierarchies & ecosystems (Mind). :smile:

A system is formed of its interactions rather than constructed from its components. — apokrisis

Well said!. That description implies that a System is not a material thing but an energetic process (individual change or group interaction). For example, the human Mind is not the physical brain (neural correlates of consciousness), but one of many command & control Functions of brain processes. The human brain is 2% of body weight, but 20% of energy usage. What is that energy doing besides processing information?

I just Googled the words "interaction" & "information"*1 and got the wiki definition below. That description sounds very similar to Holism*2*3. But I'm surprised that the scientific & philosophical concept of Holism (Systems, Complexity, Entanglement, etc) is not very familiar to posters on this forum. It provides a simple framework for understanding such conundrums as the "hard problem of consciousness", which is one of the most frequently posted topics on the forum.

For Physics, Interaction is an exchange of Energy (causation). And for Philosophy, Interaction is an exchange of Information (meaning). Yet, the relationship of Information & Energy*4 is not well known. { https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page30.html } Perhaps the best way to define a holistic System is to describe it in terms of Synergy*5 : energy + together. :smile:



*1. Interaction information expresses the amount of information (redundancy or synergy) bound up in a set of variables, beyond that which is present in any subset ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_information

*2. Holism is the interdisciplinary concept that systems possess emergent properties as wholes, which are greater than the sum of their individual parts, making them irreducible to their components. This approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of parts within a system and their collective function, contrasting with reductionism, which seeks to understand a whole by analyzing its smallest constituent elements. Holism is applied in various fields, including health, psychology, social sciences, and physics, to understand how bodies, minds, societies, or physical phenomena operate as integrated units
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=holism+information

*3. Holism :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. Energy & Information :
Energy is the physical capacity to do work, while information is the description or organization of matter and energy. Although distinct, energy and information are deeply interconnected: information requires energy to be processed and organized, and changes in information are accompanied by changes in energy, such as the heat generated when bits are erased in a computer, following Landauer's principle. This relationship is evident in biological systems, where information controls energy flow, and in physics, where the manipulation of information can be converted into energy and vice versa.

*5. *4. Synergy :
the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.
___ Oxford Dictionary

I am curious, does philosophy have a definition of a system, or even better, a general systems theory? The word is bandied about ad nauseam and I am not convinced that it is always correctly used! — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. The modern notion of Systems*1 sometimes gets mired in details. And Bertalanffy's definition was too technical for the layman. 19th century Reductive Science was unable to see the forest for the trees. Which is what made 20th century Quantum Physics so woo-woo mysterious. The forest is not a physical thing (objective), but a metaphysical collective concept (subjective).

So, I prefer to substitute another unfamiliar term, "Holism"*2, which may be somewhat easier to grasp. The 21st century science of Complexity*3 is the study of systems that are typically too complicated for reductionist methods to deal with. A key concept is Emergence, which sounds like magic for reductionist thinkers. For example, the sub-atomic phenomenon, that physicists call "Entanglement", is simply a Holistic effect of two or more particles that act like a single unit.

If you prefer Social Systems applications, such as Luhmann, one example is when individual people "aggregate" into a holistic crowd or mob or gang, and a novel collective behavior emerges :
"The wisdom of crowds theory suggests that the collective opinion of a group of people is often more accurate than the opinion of any single individual, even an expert. This idea, popularized by James Surowiecki's book of the same name, relies on the idea that diverse perspectives and independent judgments can lead to better outcomes when aggregated". :smile:


*1. General Systems Theory (GST) is an interdisciplinary framework, pioneered by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, that views phenomena as interconnected whole systems rather than isolated components, aiming to identify fundamental principles applicable across natural and social sciences. Key concepts include open systems, which interact with their environment; emergent properties, characteristics unique to the whole system; and feedback loops, where output informs new input, leading to self-regulation or homeostasis. GST offers a holistic perspective, contrasting with traditional reductionist approaches, and has influenced fields from biology to management science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=general+systems+theory%3F+

*2. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems. In the Enformationism worldview, our space-time physical reality is a holon that is a component of the enfernal G*D-Mind.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note --- Oooops. That last line may sound too woo for you.

*3. "Santa Fe systems theory" refers to the field of complexity science and complex adaptive systems (CAS), which is heavily associated with the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) in New Mexico. SFI, founded in 1984, is a leading nonprofit research center dedicated to understanding how complex systems—such as biological, social, economic, and technological systems—evolve and adapt. These systems are characterized by interconnected elements, emergent behavior, and the capacity to learn from experience, rather than simple linear cause-and-effect.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=santa+fe+systems+theory

Chaos (lack of distinction, not deterministic)
Simplicity (One thing which is composed of itself)
0 dimensional entity (Distances are not real-Ill get to that in a sec)
the big bang (beggining of Two, or the great split)
The One (lack of distiction, Chaos, infinite, simple and unique)

The universe cannot expand "outward" because, according to physics, there is no external reference point or boundary outside of it. The universe is not expanding into a pre-existing space; rather, space itself is stretching. This means that distances between points within the universe are increasing, but there is no external space into which it expands. Thus space is not made of actual space.

If the universe is stretching the way physics describe(not outwards but "inwards"), space is not composed of space but rather the effect of phenomena on matter. — Illuminati

I'm just throwing some ideas out there, into the Aether, to see if any might stick :

#A. "pre-existing space" : Space-Time is not a real thing, but an imaginary geometric model that scientists use to understand Change. Since it is Ideal, scientists can extend the model timeline into the future or the past {image below}.

#B. "space itself is stretching" I assume this is a metaphor, as-if space is an elastic substance. Space is not a material substance that could stretch & warp, but the infinite Causal Potential that makes the local Matter Effect possible?

#C. "effect of phenomena" : As you put it : space is the conceived effect of sensable phenomena, such as Matter, relative to other Matter, or that is changing its size or location. But apparently, the Cause of the effect is undifferentiated Chaos that voluntarily begins to differentiate its infinite Potential into multiple space-time Actual Things. If so, then Chaos possesses Will-power*1 or Causal Power, Desire, Inclination, Choice???

#D. "space is not made of actual space" : Not a metaphor, but a mystery. So, what is formless empty nothingness made of : Aether*2? Traditionally Chaos = randomness or nothingness or void. As you said "not deterministic", so is Chaos pure Chance? Without the willpower to choose, anything that can happen will happen??? Is space made from the causal willpower we call Energy/Change? :smile:

*1. Will :
"Schopenhauer identifies the thing-in-itself — the inner essence of everything — as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
Note --- Is "OIZ" similar to Schopenhauer's Will : more like a physical Force than a metaphysical G*D?

*2. Aether :
(or ether) can refer to the ancient Greek concept of the pure upper air breathed by gods, the personification of this sky deity, or a discredited scientific theory of a space-filling medium for light.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aether
In the 21st century, the "aether" concept reappears in physics, not as the 19th-century luminiferous medium, but as the Einstein ether, a framework exploring a space-filling medium compatible with Einstein's theories that could potentially explain dark matter/energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=21st+century+aether
Note --- Not the Fifth Element, but the Only Substance (Aristotle/Spinoza)

SPACE-TIME BEFORE & AFTER BIG BANG

I do struggle with the clear distinction between life/ death and mind/matter. Prior to interaction on this forum, I definitely believed in disembodied consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Ironically, the dualistic notion of "disembodied consciousness" (ghosts) may be influenced by the materialistic foundation of our language and our sensory experience. For example, Spiritualists in the 19th century sometimes produced physical evidence that an invisible ghost had manifested in the seance. They made up a sciency-sounding name for spirit-slime : Ectoplasm*1.

It's the greenish stuff that ghosts "slimed" the Hollywood GhostBusters with. In practice, it was merely some un-identifiable viscous substance*2, such as animal fat or cheese dust, that seancers could see & touch, to bolster their Faith and undermine Skepticism. The fake solidified "spiritual energy" was so cheesy that modern paranormal investigators eschew the tangible slime, and depend on readout "evidence" from electronic devices as FaithBuilders. :smile:


*1. In spiritualism, ectoplasm, also known as simply ecto, is a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.
spiritualism ectoplasm

*2. Paranormal: What exactly is ectoplasm?
It doesn’t actually exist. The name came about back during the craze with Mediums and photography. It was generally faked, but more current pictures sometimes depict a cheesecloth like substance that appears. These are the closest thing that you will find that may be labeled “ectoplasm”.
https://www.quora.com/Paranormal-What-exactly-is-ectoplasm

You cant have something from nothing. — Illuminati

Yes, I know. But logically you can have the emergence of something Actual from the statistical possibilities of timeless spaceless mathematical Potential*1. :nerd:

PS___ Materialism assumes that Actual Stuff has always existed, so no need for un-actualized Potential. But that metaphysical axiom is not falsifiable or verifiable. Since the BB theory calculated that everything in the universe was originally stuffed into a spaceless dimensionless mathematical point, the calculations sailed over the edge of finite reality into the abyss of Infinity : the transcendent realm of timeless entities like numbers, existing in the dimensionless gap between Zero and One. Nothing spooky about that non-existent innumerable notion. :joke:


*1. Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert (and non-existent) until actualized by some trigger. In the Enformationism metaphor, the real world was originally an idea in the Mind of G*D, with the infinite possibilities of Omniscience, that was realized by an act of Will.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Note --- My ineffable "G*D"*2 may be roughly equivalent to your "OIZ".

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer, Potential. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, 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 Intention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- If you imagine that eternal Potential as something like ideal mathematical Logic, it would have no need for human emotions that arise from the limitations of finite beings in an ever-changing reality.

If I were you I would not respond unless it makes sense the next time you do and it is not off topic, dont forget that you are currently in: /Metaphysics and epistemology and my post is on the One, not a cult, not a poem, and definitelly not based on a limited capacity to comprehend ideas such as exhibited by you and others. — Illuminati

From the exchanges of insults, I see that you are becoming frustrated by the incomprehension of your unconventional ideas on a forum of philosophers & mathematicians. I can relate. Some of my attempts to explain the reasoning & inferring underlying my unorthodox Enformationism thesis also meet with shrugs of nescience.

As long as I stick to established concepts of Physics, the dialog flows both ways. But when the discussion branches off into Meta-Physics, the communication tends to go off-track. That's where I rely on my online Glossary to provide relevant definitions of what I'm saying, that may not be found in dictionaries & encyclopedias. But, of course, they have no academic or scientific credentials to give them an air of authority.

I suppose that one reason for the disconnect is that modern Philosophy is more strongly influenced by immanent Materialism than transcendent Metaphysics, and by the authority of modern Naturalists than by ancient masters of the Supernatural. My own limited knowledge of philosophy skips-over most of the Post-platonic ideas and picks-up again with 20th century topics. So, except for Plato & Aristotle, I am mostly ignorant of the Ancient Masters.

Obviously, you have given the "OIZ" concept a lot of thought and research. But, as you said, "The One Infinite Zero is indeterminate & ineffable". Which makes it difficult to define & express in conventional terms. . . . even technical philosophical terms . . . . which have been debated for millennia. So, all I can advise is to keep plugging-away (american idiom) at it. Even though I don't understand some of your inferences from the OIZ axiom, I have a general interest in such ineffable & transcendent topics. :smile:

The big bang was not an explosion that occurred at some point within a pre-existing void, but a simultaneous expansion of space itself. — Illuminati

Yes. That's how cosmologists typically describe the Big Bang. But it's easier for ordinary humans to picture it as a metaphorical explosion of something from nothing : perhaps a "pre-existing void" of un-actualized Potential, similar to vacuum energy.

Besides, it's difficult for us to imagine anything in the absence of Space-Time as a background against which to measure it. The BB theory is an attempt to describe "the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy as we know them".

In the Everything image below, the flash of light is the BB, and the expanding time-cone --- segment of a sphere --- is space-time-matter-energy-as-our-material-bodies-know-them. The black background could be No-thing/No Distinction, or it could be One-Infinite-Zero, or it could be the saucy abode of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster ; since we have no way of knowing what might exist outside the boundaries of space-time-matter-energy. But we can conjecture from what we do know. How do you know? :joke:

cosmic singularity for anyone interested. — Illuminati

A common definition of the Singularity*1 describes it as-if all the matter & energy of our present universe was compressed into a sub-atomic spec of space-time, hence "infinite density" stuff with no empty space, and no room for motion or change. Again, most of us can only imagine such a concept in space-time-matter terms. In the Singularity Graph below, the actual vs possible area under-the-red-line-but-outside-the-box is also outside of space-time, hence immeasurable & unknowable . . . . except by pure speculation of what's Possible. Which depends on your definition of Potential.

But. for my Information-theoretic thesis, I like to describe the Singularity as a computer program for the evolution of a physical universe. The contents of the Singularity are immaterial non-dimensional Information, i.e. abstract ideas or mathematical ratios. Presumably, the source of that Information was a Programmer, existing only in a Platonic sense outside of the space-time bubble "as we know it". Of course, that's only a metaphor or allegory derived from human experience with a finite material world : as we know it. :smile:


*1. The ontological status of the cosmological singularity, a concept within the Big Bang theory, is a topic of ongoing debate. It refers to the initial state of the universe, where density and spacetime curvature are thought to be infinite. While mathematically described, its physical reality and implications for our understanding of the universe are unclear, especially concerning the validity of physical laws at that point
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=The+Ontological+Status+of+the+Cosmological+Singularity


EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING


SINGULARITY GRAPH

Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. — Jack Cummins

The creative human mind can imagine "disembodied consciousness", just as it can imagine big-headed Klingons from a distant galaxy. But, in appropriate contexts, we can distinguish science-fantasy from science-facts. If Consciousness was a physical object --- like a brain --- it could exist apart from the human body. But, if you remove the brain from the body, something bad happens : Life & Mind cease. That's because they are on-going Processes produced by and dependent on material Mechanisms, not localized objects in space. That's why I prefer Whitehead's Process Philosophy to the notion of Ghosts who walk around with transparent ectoplasmic bodies. :joke:

GHOST GIRL

Oh yes these are serious questions, it is not an apophatic OIZ concept, I have said that-and I repeat- I do not follow the apophatic way strictly to make things easier. — Illuminati

OneInfinityZero are abstractions that refer to what we do not see & sense (that which doth not appear*1) in physical reality. So descriptions of such notions are necessarily negations of what we do see & sense. Hence, we can only discuss them with metaphors drawn from the real material world : Unity vs Multiplicity ; Infinity vs Finitude ; Zero vs Instance. Most philosophical dialogs are composed of such abstractions & metaphors. What is an easier "way" to follow OIZ, than to imagine negations of material things? Direct experience, via apparition, meditation or psychedelics? :smile:

*1. 1 John 3:2, which states, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." One, Infinite, Dimensionless . . . .

You are asking what is the moral ground of this all if that exists . . . .
A key concept in this is the concept of Karma as described by me. . . .
The One means that there is no other One, it is Unique and Simple — Illuminati

My religious training summarized the universal "moral ground" in the words of Jesus : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most world religions & philosophies agree on that basic rule of human interaction.

The fatalistic notion, that what you do will eventually be done to you, only makes sense to those who believe in reincarnation. I don't. So, the assumption that you only get one chance to learn & practice morality works better with the Golden Rule.

Yes. The Hebrews were told by Moses that Yahweh --- formerly a local storm god --- was henceforth the One Infinite Eternal God, and to worship no other gods (finite material idols) above Yahweh. But humans seem to instinctively prefer more humanoid space-time deities. Hence the Catholic paradox of one God in three persons . . . . and dozens of saints. :wink:

Like I mentioned there is no such thing as "dimensions", this is an illusion caused by the mind (twice, once in the world we see and again when being interpreted by the brain). — Illuminati

That may be true in the infinite "OIZ" non-dimension. But in the real world, things are knowable in various dimensions, depending on how you measure them. For the human mind --- here in the cave-world of Platonic illusions --- what is immeasurable (infinite) is unknowable and meaningless, hence we measure them with metaphors & negations.

Apparently, you are the escapee, who has returned to tell us benighted souls about a better, realer world out there in the great beyond. I have used similar analogies & metaphors in my own speculations. So, I'm not mocking you, I'm just not waiting for the all-powerful all-knowing aliens to come down and free us slaves from bondage to matter. :sad:

-In the beggining everything was non-deterministic (Chaos) and existed as One thing, then it was determined as specific and separate things. — Illuminati

I have also used Plato's model of a Cosmos from Chaos as a metaphor of how the material world came into being. And it's possible that such Infinite Potential is still out there, waiting for this world to burn itself up. But for my little pea brain, it's just a metaphor. And I don't know how to live in a metaphor. :cool:

The One Infinite Zero (OIZ) is presented as the ultimate, transcendent, and ineffable principle of all existence. It is immortal, eternal, zero in its sum, infinite, and unmoving. Beyond any determination or description: it has no properties, belongs to no category, and is neither this nor that. It is not a being (Ον) because even “being” implies distinction. Formless, indeterminate, non-discrete, without beginning or end, it precedes existence, time, intellect, and multiplicity. Complete and self-sufficient, it requires nothing beyond itself to exist and lacks nothing. Undivided and homogeneous, it does not consist of parts and cannot be truly divided or cut; any perceived divisibility is phenomenal and internal. The “normal” state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity – a state of absolute potential. — Illuminati

Now that I am aware of the apophatic "OIZ" concept, what's the next step? Am I required to worship a formless featureless non-entity? Am I expected to join a Faith Community? Should I change my errant life in some mysterious ways? Can I become One with "OIZ"? These are serious questions.

In my post-retirement philosophical explorations I have come across many of the religious & spiritual & mystical concepts*1 mentioned in the OP. But so far, I haven't been sufficiently motivated to do anything different from my mundane daily activities. So my interest in surreal spirituality is not much more than child-like curiosity about what other people believe.

The book I'm currently reading says that a few intrepid adventurers have accessed the infinite dimensions and "diamond light" of The Divine or The Absolute by using psychedelic drugs. Like you, the author seems to possess an encyclopedic knowledge of esoteric information, but with a focus on 21st century science & philosophy & psychonaut "masters". Yet I remain stolidly locally-lucid and drug-free. Does that mean I am not a candidate for enlightenment? :smile:


*1. So What Is The Perennial Philosophy, According to Aldous Huxley? Huxley identifies a few basic tenets from which the perennial philosophy is composed: There is a transcendent divine — an eternal ultimate reality. There is an immanent divine — a ground of being and spiritual nature within the world.
https://medium.com/skeptical-spirituality/book-review-the-perennial-philosophy-by-aldous-huxley-af4584816dde

Thank you for the summary of Whitehead's philosophy relating to panpsychism. I will try to explore his ideas further because immanence and transcendence seem both important. I am not convinced that transcendence and the experience of the numinous can be reduced to the physical completely. — Jack Cummins

Transcendent & Numinous experiences are not real phenomena. but ideal imaginary models of unseen things. So, they are obviously not out-there in the Real world. Philosophers like to explore such exotic possibilities, but our material bodies necessarily remain behind in the physical world that sustains their life functions. For me, I treat such explorations of the un-mapped territories like going to the movies : at the end of the Platonic shadow-show, I always go home to my immanent abode. :wink:

PS___ When you die in the real world, you don't survive to make another movie. Unless, you believe --- without evidence --- in reincarnation. Your living body does depend on stuff that, for practical purposes, can be reduced to the physical. For the life of the Mind though, some people can live on fantasies. That's why they go to rom-com and super-hero movies.

This is not philosophy vs Science, Science has its roots in Metaphysics and Theology and Epistemology among others. Our Grand Masters went the other way around, understood the One to understand the universe. And so can we. — Illuminati

My philosophy leans much more toward empirical Science & Ontology than to mysticism or spiritualism or Henology. I also tend to be skeptical of ideas that are outlandish & unconventional. But for philosophical learning, I try to defer judgement and keep an open mind, in order to broaden my worldview.

I explore some of those far-out notions only out of intellectual curiosity, not religious motivation. Since non-empirical entities cannot be proven True, in the empirical sense, I don't concern myself with their big-T Truth. I'm currently reading a big book that begins with a review of the current state of Science, but then delves into Natural Magic & Shamanic & Psychedelic adventures in "other dimensions". I have no personal experience with mind-altering drugs, so their exploits in parallel worlds with transcendent Intelligences & Mother Universes are treated as creative Fiction or Fantasy, not mundane Facts.

I also read the "bible" of Scottish Rite Freemasonry by 33rd degree Albert Pike. But I am not a mason. I found it interesting, but not relevant to my mundane world. Although they use the metaphor of Great Architect, the Mason's God seems more like your OneInfiniteZero than the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. All I know about the Grand Masters of the Illuminati is rumors & conspiracy theories. So, I'm not likely to accept anything the GMs say as sublime Truth. :smile:

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance. — Gnomon
Then why dont you agree that space itself among everything else is the realization of the potential and this potential is completelly fake, space is not made of space, colour is not made of colour, do you see where Im getting with this? — Illuminati

Yes, I see where you are going with such negations of mundane reality : toward Idealism & Spiritualism & Neo-Platonism. But I am much more comfortable with my familiar "fake" world. I explore such otherworldly realms only to put my this-worldly experiences into a mid-range context between tangible Materialism and intangible Idealism. Platonic Ideals & Transcendent Deities inform my worldview on the margins. But I always return to my warm cave with a fire casting shadows on the wall, where I can see the space-time silhouettes with my own eyes. :joke:

If light is the fabric of everything else it shouldnt be composed of something else, yet it is. For this reason it may not be a fundamental essence. Please elaborate. — Illuminati

In physics, Light is described as a quantum phenomenon, and the quanta of light are called Photons (packets of energy). But that materialistic definition is true only for convenience in mathematical calculations. However, Einstein equated causal Energy with measurable Mass and tangible Matter.

For philosophical purposes though, Energy is essential to everything that changes, including Life and Mind. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began from nothing (no matter) as a burst of causal Energy, suspiciously similar to the "let there be light" in Genesis. But that raw Energy necessarily included Information (natural laws) to guide the processes of Evolution. My term for that combination of Causation & Direction is EnFormAction*1 : the power to transform, to evolve.

Therefore, Light (energy) is the metaphorical essence & fabric of the universe, both Matter & MInd. If you are interested in an amateur theory-of-everything, my Information-based thesis & blog "elaborate" further, in great detail. :nerd:

PS___ Since Light-Energy is essential & fundamental, it is not composed of "something else". Ultimately, physical Energy is actualized from immaterial Potential. For Materialists though, Potential does not exist, because it is immaterial (not yet real).

*1. EnFormAction :
# Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Philosophically, it's Schopenhauer's Will & Idea. So EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

This is true in a way but shouldnt Enformy mean both negentropy and entropy since these two are one phenomena? — Illuminati

Enformy*2 is my coined term for what Schrodinger called "negentropy", referring to Free Energy that is available to do work. By contrast, Entropy is Wasted Energy that is no longer able to cause constructive change. Therefore, I consider Entropy to be Negative (disorder, disorganization), and Enformy to be Positive (order, organization) forces in Evolution. They are mirror images (thesis/anti-thesis) of "one phenomena" : Causation. :smile:


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

Can you explain in terms of physics if space itself requires spatial integration (meaning a pre-existing or newly created space) and if so how does this volume appear if nothing can be created from nothing according to science? If this volume is pre-existent how is new space being added? We know that space stretches, meaning space is not being added. If this space is pre-existent how was it formed if there was no matter or anything at all("back then") which is now contained in space? — Illuminati

"Nothing from nothing" is true within the physical/material universe. But the Big Bang theory logically implies that Something (our everything material world) was created from no-thing (some unknowable transcendent Potential)*3*4. Physicists typically stop their researches at that space-time boundary. But philosophers are not bound by the requirement for empirical evidence. Anyway, the pre-bang-potential is not Real (no space, no time, no matter), but Ideal & speculative (no practical applications). Hence, useful only for philosophical argumentation. :cool:

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance.

*3. Cosmos from Chaos :
The Big Bang theory describes the origin of the universe, suggesting it expanded from an extremely hot, dense state, not from nothing. While often described as "something from nothing," the theory actually posits that all of space, time, matter, and energy originated from that initial state, not that they came from a pre-existing void.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+something+from+nothing

*4. Cosmos from Chaos :
In Plato's cosmology, as presented in the Timaeus, the universe (cosmos) is not created from nothing but rather emerges from a pre-existing state of chaos . . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+cosmos+from+chaos
Note --- Chaos, here, refers to Plato's realm of Ideal Forms, that are not Real, but only Potential, until Actualized by the Demiurge.

I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this. — Jack Cummins

Whitehead described his God as both transcendent and immanent. So any divine actions in the physical world are Natural, not supernatural interventions from heaven. His theology was labeled, by his associate, as Panentheism. But I prefer to spell it PanEnDeism, in order to avoid the doctrinal associations of Theism.

Whitehead's philosophy was also labeled as Panpsychism. But he typically reserved the term "Consciousness" for humans, and used generic "Experience" to refer to other dynamic-but-meaningless interactions, such as exchanges of Energy. I think that term still sounds absurd, implying sentient atoms. So, I use different terminology, that is intended to be less spooky or strange. :smile:

PS___ My first attempt to read his book left me feeling inadequate to the task. I eventually got a better understanding from third-person accounts of Process Philosophy.

*1. Whitehead's panpsychism, or more accurately, his process-relational philosophy, posits that mentality is a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of reality, not just a characteristic of humans or animals. His view differs from traditional panpsychism by emphasizing the "experiential" nature of all entities, rather than just consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+panpsychism

Separation is an illusion of the mind, we are all One light fragmented into many colours.
All object and phenomena are made of the same original building block. — Illuminati

That's a poetic metaphor of how the One became Many, or the Singularity became a Cosmos. Here's a recent blog post*1 to indicate that I have been thinking along similar lines, but in different terms*2. My background is more physical than philosophical. So, my metaphors are often derived from Physics instead of Metaphysics. :nerd:

*1. Light is Enformy :
In the Enformationism thesis, I have concluded that Light itself is the universal reference field, as well as the basic form of causal Energy. Hence, Light is the universal measuring stick of all things. Another way to look at it is to view light-energy as the “fabric” of space-time, as it interweaves all matter into a universal system. Light is the background reference for everything in the world, because, wherever you look, light is already there. But, it’s invisible until detected by a sentient sensor, such as the human eye.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page48.html

*2. Enformy :
The organizing principle of the universe. A postulated natural force/principle that opposes Entropy in that it causes an evolutionary tendency toward order, and away from chaos.
Note : Scientists call it Negentropy.

Whole : Speaking of a "creator" we cant possibly say that the creation itself is separate from the One because there cant be something which is not part of the whole, — Illuminati

My philosophical worldview is also Holistic, as opposed to Reductionist. Are you familiar with the 1920s book by Jan Smuts?*3 : Holism and Evolution : The Synthetic Tendency in the Universe.

I have to be careful about using the term "Creator" on the forum, because it typically brings to mind the creation myth of Genesis. Personally, to avoid bringing religion into a philosophical exploration, I often refer to the Big Bang creation myth. Which leaves the "who" & "why" questions unanswered and open to hypothesizing. :smile:

*3. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living beings.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

PS___ The 17th & 18th century Illuminati were supposed to be opposed to the Catholic Church, and enlightened by the emergence of empirical Science. Does that historical ideology have anything to do with your 21st century philosophy?