• A moral paradox?
    I'm set to enlist in the military but I have the option of not serving if I want to (by acquiring an exemption) so I was debating whether it would be morally right to serve or not. — SightsOfCold
    In the United States, and in most of Europe, your moral quandary would be purely hypothetical, because those nations no longer have enforced conscription. If you live in a country with mandatory conscription though, many of them have provisions for alternative service that does not require killing or being killed.

    Your philosophical position may hinge on the presumed consequences of your choice. Will your example serve to bring an end to War? Will someone else have to take your place on the battlefield? As with most moral dilemmas, there is no clear & ultimate & rational right-or-wrong answer to your question. You may eventually have to decide based on your personal feelings --- or just cop-out and let someone else decide for you.

    BTW : The morality of Military Exemptions themselves have been debated, since it's typically the rich who benefit (e.g. Trump's bone spurs), while the poor have no way out.
  • A moral paradox?
    I'm set to enlist in the military but I have the option of not serving if I want to (by acquiring an exemption) so I was debating whether it would be morally right to serve or not. — SightsOfCold
    I was drafted during the Vietnam debacle, and faced a paradox of my own. My religious training involved the commandment "thou shalt not kill", but also included many examples where God specifically commanded his chosen people to kill, including genocide. My father & brother had served in the Navy, so I had a precedent to follow. The Vietnamese rebels were not attacking me or my country (directly), so I had no personal reason to fight with them. Eventually, I decided to go with the flow, and to not fight the system. I was philosophically naive at the time. And only later considered the role of war in its wider moral implications.

    I am no longer guided by conflicting religious principles. So my current attitude toward WAR is based on my personal BothAnd philosophy. Fighting and killing may be good for some and bad for others. But such conflicts seem to be inevitable, in the tooth & claw natural world, and even in supposedly rational human culture. We can dream of Utopias without the scourge of War, but the best we can hope for in reality is to find an Aristotelian Golden Mean. The Catholic Church wrestled for centuries with the absurdity & necessity of violent conflict. So they devised a compromise in their theory of a "just war". Essentially, self- and other - defense is justified, and un-provoked offense is unjust. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be can always find reasons to justify offensive wars. So, ultimately it's up to the individual to decide the lesser of two evils : to serve your country and kill the bad guys, or to serve morality, abstain from killing, and suffer the reproach of your fellow citizens.

    I actually enjoyed my four years in the Navy, where I never had to kill or be killed. But soldiers returning home to the Peace & Love hippie vibe, were dishonored as baby-killers. Many years later, in a more conservative environment, I am often thanked for my service. So. the lesson is that you must be true to your own values, and do what you think is best. Your decision may not be all-good or all-bad, but it will be yours, and you will have to live with it.

    The BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

    Not though the soldier knew
    Someone had blundered.
    Theirs not to make reply,
    Theirs not to reason why,
    Theirs but to do and die.
    ___Tennyson
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    while metaphysics as I would like to construe it is about the necessary, a priori philosophical framework needed to go about doing such description: — Pfhorrest
    Actually, your definition of Metaphysics is not that different from mine. The primary distinction is that your terminology seems to derive from your education in Philosophy. But, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Science, beyond first year 101-level classes, my labels may be more idiosyncratic. And they are primarily derived from years of autodidact reading in general scientific & philosophical publications. For those schooled in traditional terminology, my quirky terms may be puzzling. So, that's why I have compiled a glossary for those interested in decoding the unconventional Enformationism worldview.
    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    My somewhat unconventional use of "Meta-Physics" is also about that which is "necessary" and "a priori", which in my worldview is the Mind of G*D, and its subsidiary human minds. In other words, about Ideas and Ideals rather than the things and objects of Physics.

    In my Codex Quaerendae (I guess we're allowed to link our personal projects here?) — Pfhorrest
    I have begun reading your Book of Questions, but it will take time to review its manifold topics. As an amateur website builder, I find the graphics very well done. I'm afraid mine are rather crude & garish by comparison.

    I like to think of the last four as being about the "objects of morality" or less verbosely as about purpose, will, intention, and governance. — Pfhorrest
    My thesis is more about Ontology & Epistemology than Ethics & Morality, but it covers some of the same topics as yours : "purpose, will, intention, and governance" --- the last being more about natural laws than civil.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    But none of this tells us anything about what might be actually real beyond an empirical context. — Janus
    Yes. That's why I prefer to make a different distinction from the usual Real/Ideal, Empirical/Theoretical Materialism/Spiritualism dichotomies. Materialism typically treats anything Ideal as non-existent. But then the Materialism hypothesis is itself an idea, so what is the status of its reality? Since we tend to accept our own ideas, memories, attitudes, feelings, and such as part of our personal reality, we need a name for that kind of non-physical realness. I suspect that the perceived need -- for a name with which to refer to mental intangibles (e.g. numbers, principles) collectively -- caused some ancient thinkers to adopt the informal title of Aristotle's second volume of his lectures on Nature (Physics) to cover everything immaterial. The Physics books discussed things we know via our senses (things-that-change in space & time, matter, hyle). But the Metaphysics books were mostly about human ideas, opinions, and theories regarding the external furnishings of Nature. You might call them the furniture of the mind.
    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    we are firmly committed to saying that something was real prior to the advent of the empirical context. — Janus
    The existence of the universe prior to the emergence of human consciousness is not empirically justified, because it is just a theory based on projection of current events into the past. We assume that physical reality was trucking along just fine with no minds to perceive it. Yet Bishop Berkeley argued that the world was being perceived, not just by humans, but also by God. So, when he asserted that “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived) he was not referring just to human observers. That may also be relevant to the interpretation expressed by quantum theorists, that the Quantum Observer Effect means that a particle doesn't really exist until it is measured. “To Measure” is from the root “mens-” meaning “mind”. So you could say that reality is what has been “touched” by a mind. In other words, what we take to be real is a subjective opinion, that must be carefully compared to opinions of other perceivers in order to assign it the imprimatur of Objective reality.
    Divine Observer : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/261761-there-was-a-young-man-who-said-god-must-find

    In the case of the earlier-than-human history of the Earth the best we can do is to imagine what we would have seen if we had been there. — Janus
    That is exactly what astronomers were doing, in the 1920s, when they calculated the trajectory of all observable matter back to the point of coincidence. Many of us now accept their, then controversial, interpretation that the real world did not exist 15 billion years ago, but suddenly emerged in the so-called Big Bang. Yet again, that is an expert opinion, based on their translation from abstract mathematical calculations into an imaginary scenario that the rest of us can visualize. So, you could reasonably say that “reality is a theory”.
    Reality is a Theory : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
    Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html


    I'm also interested to know how you interpret the idea of an intentional creator. — Janus
    The Enformationism worldview is based, in part, on my interpretation of the process of Evolution (En-form-ation) , not as a random chaotic mess, but as an orderly progression in the direction of Time's Arrow, toward some ultimate denouement, a resolution to this ongoing narrative. Of course, I have no idea what form that final summing-up will take, but it seems as certain as the Big Bang. The current scientific opinion is that reality will just fade away into the sunset. But other interpreters of evolution, such as Teillard deChardin, refer to the final chapter as the Omega Point, and describe it as the universe becoming something like a god. I'm not bold enough to go that far, but one allegorical scenario would be that our emerging world is like a fetus developing into the offspring of G*D. I wouldn't take that metaphor, or any other imaginary analogies too literally, but it gives us a way to imagine where we stand in the otherwise mysterious process of natural and cultural evolution. If that scenario is anywhere close to true, then we would have to attribute the human-like property of goal-oriented Intention to the First Cause and Prime Mover. Here's a chart I drew up to illustrate my concept of evolution from beginning to end.
    Cosmic Progression Chart : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

    If not are all outcomes precisely planned or was the creator like a computer programmer, producing an algorithm that is left to run and produce unpredictable outcomes? Is the creator sentient and sapient? Loving? Omnipotent? Infallible? Did the creator produce the laws of nature or must it work within them. Is the creator consciously aware of all events in its creation, or only some of them, or none of them? — Janus
    I don't claim to know anything about the Creator of our world beyond the properties that are logically necessary for such a Creation to exist. But my guess is that what I call "G*D" is more like a computer Programmer than the Great Magician portrayed in Genesis. This blog post may answer your other questions.
    The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    Really, it seems to me, for two things to interact, some sort of unity must be involved. Two things cannot remain truly, fundamentally distinct and independent and at the same time interact. They must touch. And for them to touch requires that they are of a common substance. And if they truly touch, they become in some sense continuous with one another. — petrichor
    Yes. The unity of two or more things requires a relationship of some kind. But they don't always have to "touch" physically. The may also have a meta-physical relationship. For example, a group of stars. lightyears apart from each other may form a constellation from our perspective on earth. But that geometrical relationship is not based on the physics of energy exchange. Except for minimal light energy and gravity, there is no touching. Their connection is in the mind of the beholder. And they are known only as pin-point abstractions. That mathematical relationship is meaningful to humans for reasons that have little to do with the stars themselves. They are perceived as a system due to their participation in a common "substance" : Information, (EnFormAction) which touches everything.

    Likewise, the mind is related to the body, not because of neurons touching ideas, but because they both participate in the holistic mind/body system. Is that spooky, or what?

    Ultimately, everything is connected. It is one thing. There is just one big experience going on, one big causal network. — petrichor
    The Mind of G*D : the First and Final Cause. That concept boggles my mind, so I try to remain agnostic. But it seems to follow logically from what we know about how information works in the real world.
  • Why I gave up on Stoicism.
    Studying Stoicism does not produce happiness. — Wallows
    How do you define "happiness"? Stoics seemed to equate it with calm acceptance of whatever "happens" (Eudaimonia), not with "good luck" due to divine providence. At first, that sounds like Fatalism. But part 2 of Stoicism is to avoid worrying about "what ought to be". This is similar to Zen Buddhism, in that striving for perfection in an imperfect world is the cause of your unhappiness. That's not to say that you shouldn't try to improve your conditions (flourishing); just don't sink into anxiety & depression when you fail. Stoicism emphasizes virtuous character, so you can roll with the punches, and bend like a reed without breaking. Ultimately, happiness is a personal attitude, not an external goal to be reached.
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    Yes. What's missing from current computers is Qualia. 1s and 0s can be processed mathematically, but don't add-up to the quality of consciousness. — Gnomon

    I don't know if qualia is actually missing. I just think that, though being a modification of the same underlying substance, it must be quite different in structure.     — petrichor
    Yes. The underlying "substance" is generic Information. Digital information is Quantitative (discontinuous), while Analog information is Qualitative (continuous). Computers process 1s & 0s as abstractions that never occur in reality. But humans process information in terms of values between Zero and 100%. That's the insight of Bayesian logic : binary logic is two-valued (absolute, either/or), while human logic is multi-valued (probabilistic; both/and). That's why programmers are now experimenting with Analog computers that use Bayesian logic to approximate human reasoning (inference). Such calculations allow freedom, but also errors. The role-playing robots in WestWorld are supposed to have analog brains, which makes them eerily life-like, but also unpredictable.

    Bayesian Inference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
    BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

    Are the 1s and 0s represented themselves aware of anything? Is the digital image represented by them itself aware of itself? No, no, no, and no. — petrichor
    No. Digital processing is unlikely to be aware of anything apart from voltage fluctuations. But Analog processing might be the first step toward self-awareness. Simple awareness is an inference from incoming information that something is out there. Higher level awareness (self-consciousness) might require more detailed inference that includes self-reference.
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    Technically, I agree. But I don’t find this helpful as an either-or dichotomy, as if the metaphysical is not physical and vice versa. — Possibility
    For clarity, I define Physical and Meta-Physical according to my personal interpretation of Aristotle (see Glossary). I also try to make a clear distinction between Real and Ideal. They are all various forms of universal Information, but for the purposes of dialog we must be more specific.
    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    If we are to create something that is conscious in the way we are, it seems to me that we need something qualitatively different from a computer. — petrichor
    Yes. What's missing from current computers is Qualia. 1s and 0s can be processed mathematically, but don't add-up to the quality of consciousness.

    My own suspicion is that our consciousness is really just a highly organized form of something that is fundamental. What I mean to say is that basic subjectivity is there everywhere in nature at a very low level. — petrichor
    I see that you have thought deeply about the mystery of Consciousness. And your conclusion is similar to mine, that something like the ancient theory of Panpsychism must be involved. As you hastened to point out, that doesn't mean that atoms or single-cell organisms are conscious, but they do "sense" their environment in exchanges of energy ("atoms of experience")

    . You could call that "subjectivity" as a loose metaphor, but it wouldn't be anything like the New Age notion, which would attribute the "what it's like" feeling to every particle in the universe.

    In my own worldview, I refer to that "something fundamental" as Information. That's why I call my personal theory of everything, Enformationism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

    Suppose you just have primitive Being, or Unity, or whatever, The Undifferentiated. Call it what you like. — petrichor
    In my thesis, I call that source of all that is, BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

    Maybe the primordial unity objectifies itself and thereby becomes a subject. — petrichor
    For the purposes of distinguishing between the space-time world and the infinite-eternal BEING, I refer to the ultimate source as G*D, but only in a non-humanoid sense. As a form of PanEnDeism, we can imagine that the holistic G*D created our world to serve as something like a mirror. Thus, an undifferentiated BEING could become subject and object. I wouldn't take that metaphor too literally, but it might give us a clue to answer the old "why create an imperfect world?" conundrum.
    G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

    And then we wonder how our interiority could possibly "emerge" out of special arrangements of these empty, purely structural, substanceless objects. No wonder there is a mind-body problem! — petrichor
    My answer to the Mind/Body problem is to note that both are forms of fundamental Information. We now know that Information is not just mind-stuff, but also material-stuff. Scientists have equated Information with Energy, and Energy with Matter. So, in my thesis the emergence of Mind/Consciousness from Matter/Body is a high-level instance of the Phase Changes that are found throughout Physics. I could go into much more detail, but for now, I'll just leave it as a speculation.
    Mind.Body Problem : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page30.html

    information integration, a la Tononi — petrichor
    Yes. Holism is essential to my theory of Enformationism

    But a computer running a simulation of a brain or whatever, has, in its physical substrate, a very different causal structure, one that probably lacks the kind of intentional content we want it to have when we want it to be conscious in the way that we are. — petrichor
    Yes. That's why computers cannot become conscious until they develop a point-of-view (self image) and are able to intend future actions that are not pre-programmed.
    .
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    ‘mind’ as a concept refers collectively to relations of experience — Possibility
    Yes. Scientists have looked for the correlates of consciousness in particular things. But, as you implied, the locus of Mind is in the relationships between things. Mind is meta-physical, like Mathematics, not physical, like neurons.
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    Before we claim to be making something like a human, first make a very simple robot that can feel pain. — petrichor
    As I said, we are in the early stages of robotics. And I am also skeptical of Sci-Fi stories of conscious robots . . . in the near future.

    But . . . due to the long arc of my Enformationism worldview, I can't rule-out the possibility that artificial consciousness could be the next phase of evolution. Don't underestimate the motivation & ingenuity of human animals, who -- against all odds -- realized their ancient dream of touching the moon. Consciousness is not magic, it's meta-physics.

    PS__In my personal world model, the Potential for Life & Consciousness was inherent in the physical world from the beginning, and emerged only when conditions were right for their expression . . . not as a miracle, but as an inevitable function of the creative evolutionary process.
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    The idea I'm proposing is actually quite compatible with your 'enformationism'. What is it, that grasps meaning? — Wayfarer
    Yes. That question has perplexed scientists for years, since they don't accept the existence of a black-box Soul. Ironically, most of their mechanical hypotheses imply, but don't assert, the existence of some kind of Homunculus, a ghostly version of the Self that views the "cartesian theatre" in the brain. But that's essentially what a Soul is supposed to be : an immortal ethereal twin of the physical body -- with some unique features : Life & Consciousness.

    I think the ancient hypothesis of a Soul was a good guess, considering the primitive state of understanding of how the body and brain work. Today, Atheists assume that consciousness is "nothing more than" neuronal activity. But they still have no idea how physical electrical activity transitions into meta-physical mental activity.

    That's why Enformationism takes a Holistic view of the process, taking into account the well-known fact that wholes are "more than" the sum of the parts. That doesn't explain the step-by-step "mechanics" of consciousness, but it gives us a clue that it's not any particular part or set of parts that produce consciousness, Instead it's the system as a whole. My guess is that consciousness emerges from a high-level form of the Phase Changes that we observe in physics, when water suddenly transforms into ice or gas, with their own unique properties.

    Presumably, EnFormAction works both ways : to create meaningful patterns, and to interpret them into meaningful ideas. Unfortunately, for that to work, some kind of intentional conscious Enformer is logically required to create the cosmic system that evolves to a point where living conscious creatures can emerge from non-living non-conscious matter & energy. I say "unfortunate" because the Enformer is the ultimate black-box, and may be forever beyond the reach of our understanding. So, the EnFormAction hypothesis is just an update of the older guesses about Life and Mind. As you implied : Mind (G*D) is unknowable.

    Emergence of Mind : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page69.html
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    Such things have arrived? — petrichor
    We are now in the early stages of producing humanoid robots. I doubt that anyone would think the current models have souls, but people typically find them eerily life-like. It's only a matter of time until we're faced with moral questions such as those addressed in Sci-Fi (WestWorld).
    Life-Like Robots : https://futurism.com/the-most-life-life-robots-ever-created
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    That's not 'the ancient mind/body problem' but 'the modern mind body problem'. — Wayfarer
    I see your point. But the notion of a Soul separate from the Body goes back at least to ancient Egypt. Descartes merely made the distinction formal in order to allow physical Science to proceed without concern for controversial metaphysical assumptions. It was an early form of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria argument.

    Ironically, now that Science has allowed us to create human-like autonomous robots, the question again arises whether they have souls. That's a staple theme of futuristic Sci-Fi like WestWorld. :smile:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Real. Hence the fundamental truth of mathematical Platonism: that intelligible objects are real, but they're not material in nature — Wayfarer
    Yes. That's why I prefer to avoid the Real/Unreal dichotomy, and refer to Mathematical "structures" as Metaphysical, and material structures as Physical.

    As to number: I imagine most people would say it is real. It is as real as difference. Likewise with geometry: it is as real as form and measure, and I doubt you would find many who deny the reality of those. — Janus
    Philosophers have argued about what's real for millennia, and the beat goes on. So, I simply say : "it's both/and".
    The BothAnd philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    The problem though, is that matter itself is just an idea, a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes. According to Idealism, ultimately, everything in reality is an idea in the mind of G*D. Enformationism is essentially an update of ancient Idealism, using our modern understanding of Information to clarify such enigmas as how Minds can emerge from Matter. Answer : It's all mind.

    That doesn't mean that you and I are ghosts, though. For us physical beings, what we perceive as real is as real as it gets. Since we are inside the Cave or the Matrix, so to speak, we can only imagine the "true" reality, unless someone like Plato comes along to unshackle our bodies, or like Morpheus to offer us the Red Pill.

    So, for all practical purposes, Matter is what the world is made of. And divine Mind is merely an idea.

    If that statement sounds like a reversal of the conclusion in the first paragraph, that's because Enformationism is a BothAnd worldview : our world consists of metaphysical Information in the Mind of G*D, but we perceive that Information as physical stuff. So, which is "true" depends on whether you are looking at the world from the Inside (subjective) or from Outside (objective). But we can "see" objectively only in imagination -- and then, only "in a glass darkly".
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    I'm not sure that Quantum theorists would agree with you that the quantum field has nothing more than an abstract reality. — Janus
    Some would and some wouldn't. I was referring to the mathematical definition of a Field :
    "In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined, and behave as the corresponding operations on rational and real numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure, which is widely used in algebra, number theory and many other areas of mathematics." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

    Is a "Set" or "Algebraic Structure" concrete or abstract, real or ideal? That depends on how you look at it.

    The various fields are defined in terms of hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points. Yet, it's not the substanceless points that are important, but the relationships (ratios) between them, as in geometry and trigonometry. That is also how Information works in the real world. A "bit" of Information is a relationship between two or more objects (basically 1 or 0). Multiple bits add-up to physical fields, and fields add-up to matter (fluctuations in the field are what we detect as particles). When human beings observe those physical objects, the mind detects those ratios (physical information), and interprets them as meaning (mental information).
    <<Note : interpretation of RATIOS is the basis of REASONING.>>

    Electromagnetic Fields and Quantum Fields are just special cases of the universal Information Field. I could also say that the Information Field is an update of the ancient notion of the Akashic Field.

    Physicist Victor Toth answered the question, "What is a quantum field?" in this manner :
    "But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter." ___ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/20/what-is-a-quantum-field-and-how-does-it-interact-with-matter/#6c0495928c4a

    That would also be my answer to "What is an Information Field?" : the information field does not interact with matter, it is matter.

    These ideas are far outside the understanding of the "man on the street". And even for philosophers and physicists are so unconventional as to sound absurd. The Enformationism Thesis attempts to begin at the beginning, and to build-up a worldview based on Information rather than Matter or Spirit.
    Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
  • Whats the standard for Mind/Body
    What is the standard to prove to you mind body dualism? — MiloL
    The ancient Mind/Body conundrum is based on a false assumption : that the Mind/Soul is a thing apart from the Brain/Body. Like the "Hard Problem" of consciousness, it derives from the human propensity to reify abstractions.

    In fact, the Mind or Soul is merely the Function of the Brain/Body : to produce Consciousness & Life.

    Transportation is the function of an Automobile, but we don't imagine it as a spooky doppelganger of the car. Likewise, Mind is merely what the Brain does. So, scientific experiments should be trying to clarify exactly how the brain does what it does, and not looking for mysterious Ghosts or Homunculus operators of the body. It would help to view the Mind/Body as an integrated whole system instead of as a loose association of parts.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    although I wouldn't say that they are "axioms" as Gnomon does, but that they are conjectures as Popper says or speculations. — Janus
    My notion of G*D is indeed a speculation or conjecture, because I have no real-world experience with anything outside of space-time. But it is also an Axiom in the sense that G*D is "a premise or starting point for reasoning." Enformationism is intended to be a 21st century update of ancient Materialism and Spiritualism. Since mundane Information consists of immaterial ideas as the content of material "carriers", it is necessarily an Ideal "object", not a real thing.

    So, in order to establish a rational foundation for a real world in which Information is ubiquitous -- I.e. reality functions like a computer program -- I must assume the "existence" of an Enformer or Programmer. And since there is a common conventional name for that Creator function, I decided not to use some abstruse philosophical term, but to merely make a spelling change to indicate that this is not your Priest's or Pastor's ancient obsolete notion of a heavenly king, but a novel concept in keeping with our modern understanding of the Cosmos.

    we can treat them as provisional ideas to be entertained to see where they might lead our thought. — Janus
    Precisely.

    I'm not saying the eternal is real, — Janus
    That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Real and Ideal, Experiential and Imaginary. Imaginary things are usually abstractions from reality. And as such, may be plausible and generally acceptable, or dubious and subject to skeptical analysis. That's why I accept the notion of "Eternity" as a rational inference from the spatial & temporal limitations of Reality, logically requiring a First Cause of space & time to explain how reality came to be.

    I don't know if the Akashic Field is real. — Janus
    I don't have a problem with the mathematical concept of "fields" to describe something that is logically necessary, but actually abstract (not real). It's an aid to visualization of abstractions. The Akashic Field is an ancient philosophical attempt to make sense of the abstract-Mind vs concrete-Body mystery. But, over the years, the general concept has collected a lot of mystical baggage that is no longer necessary, since we now have more mundane explanations for strange observations.

    For example, some explanations for Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) assume that those experiences can only be understood as taking place in real-but-parallel planes of existence. Yet modern science has given us more insight into how the brain converts sensory experiences into mental images. So, a more practical assumption for OBEs is that they are similar to dreams. In fact, I had OBEs and NDEs when I was young. But having no mystical assumptions, I merely interpreted them as strange dreams.

    I now have an Information-based explanation for both Akashic and Quantum Fields.

    "In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    The problem often lies with terminology. — Janus
    If you have a problem with my Enformationism terminology, you are welcome to consult the Glossary.

    For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. — Janus
    How, then, do you know "what is" apart from experience? Do you have extra-sensory perception? We make guesses about what "could" be, by extrapolating from sensory experience to what seems statistically possible.

    So I would say that what we think of as the eternal is either real or ideal, and that we don't know which. — Janus
    Please clarify your terminology. In what sense would you say that "the eternal" is Real? Is it a parallel reality, existing beyond the scope of our time-bound senses? Or is it like the position & velocity of an electron, existing in super-position, so that we cannot measure those properties? Are your categories of "real" and "ideal" so indeterminate that humans can't decide which is which?

    There are inherent problems, in any case, with pushing the bounds of language and then imagining that there is some "objective reality" which could be somehow isomorphic with our reifications. — Janus
    Yes. That's how people imagine "evil" as a human-like entity, and give it a personal name. Can you discriminate whether Satan is Real or Ideal? Is he a maybe?

    I would say the transcendental is real, but we cannot say what it is. — Janus
    Why not? "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ___Wittgenstein :smile:

    Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. — Janus
    Yes. That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Actual (space-time; empirical; Real) and Potential (imaginary; theoretical; Ideal).
    The term "exist" normally refers to physical, empirical stuff. But in what sense do Ideas exist? If they are not real, why do we speak of ideas as-if they have some meaning, some relevance? Hamlet spoke of "to be, or not to be", as-if it was a viable option. In order to discuss philosophy, we must come to terms with ideas and ideality, or else we can only do pragmatic Science. Is Science a real thing? Does Science exist?

    So, the quantum vacuum, or the akashic field, or the apeiron, or god or nature or substance or whatever you want to call it is real, but virtually, not empirically so. — Janus
    Is the Akashic Field real in the same sense that a Quantum Field is real? The latter is pure mathematical imagination with no empirical substance. Yet, we find the concept useful for mathematical calculations. Physicists created the concept of a Virtual Particle out of pure imagination, as a place-holder for something indeterminate (superposition) because it exists only as statistical potential, but is useful for calculations. What is the Akashic field good for, other than for story-telling? Is Virtual Reality really real, or is it an idea in the mind of the beholder (hence Ideal)?

    I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, — Janus
    I used the term "provable" in the sense of "testable", not in the sense of "certainty". Science has come to terms with uncertainty, but they still test their hypotheses in order to weed out those that have no pragmatic usefulness. Darwin's hypothesis of the evolutionary process won't be absolutely proven for a million years. But, meanwhile it serves as a framework for understanding biology. The G*D hypothesis, as I said, is unprovable, but useful for making sense of the role of ideal immaterial information in the real material world.

    "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." ___Theodosius Dobzhansky

    "Nothing in reality makes sense, except in the light of EnFormAction." ____Gnomon
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Now I'm not sure whether you think Eternity is real or imaginary. — Janus
    As I said, "the imaginary realm we call Eternity". Reality is typically defined as that which is objective (you and I can both experience it). Ideality is that which is subjective (only I can directly experience it). But humans can share their experiences in the form of words. And words may be misinterpreted, depending on the varieties of personal experience. Have you ever experienced Eternity or Infinity? No, but you can imagine a timeless non-spatial state by analogy with your experience with space-time. Our metaphors are useful for conveying qualities that may not be apparent to others. But they can also be misleading when taken literally. That's why I say Eternity is not real . . . it's ideal.

    I'm not sure what you mean by " a strong relationship to reality". — Janus
    There is no Zero (non-existence) in reality (physical existence). But we find that unreal notion useful as a negation of reality. Again, we can imagine non-existence as a way to describe something that could possibly exist, but is missing in actuality. In mathematics, numbers are names for things that can be counted physically, but zero is the name for something that cannot be counted. Although "zero" is literally non-existent, it still has a function in math. It has a functional relationship to reality. Similarly, I can say that your Mind is not real (I can't see it), but it obviously has a function that is related to the real brain that I could see if I opened your head. Functions are not real, but they are relevant. So, we sometimes give names to functions, as-if they were real. Ideality is as-if.

    Are you suggesting that infinity and zero are real in the sense of being more than mere concepts? — Janus
    No. They are not real, but they are useful concepts. "Functions" are links between Cause & Effect, but they are not physically real things. As Hume noted, Causation is something we infer, not something we actually experience. Likewise, Infinity and Zero are functions (ideas) that we infer from our experience with space-time. Zero is a function of (1 thing minus 1 thing).

    If we speak of the transcendent, as opposed to the merely transcendental (what is beyond our experience and understanding), then we are departing from our justified mode of apophasis and moving into the unjustified mode of kataphasis, that leads straight to reification, superstitious beliefs, dogma and fundamentalism. — Janus
    "Transcendent" is another word for that which is not real -- it is assumed to "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. Reality is space-time, so something Transcendent is assumed to be non-local and non-temporal. But we often imagine such non-things metaphorically as-if they are real things (i.e. reification). Christians subjectively experience "evil" and imagine that adjective as-if it were an objective living being, and give it a name : Satan. In that case, they may be deceiving themselves with scary stories of "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour".

    On the other hand, mathematicians find reification useful, when they give a name to non-existence (Zero). Likewise, I gave the name "G*D" to a necessary function (creation) to serve as a place-holder for something transcendent and unreal, but definitely relevant to our desire to understand the origin of our world. G*D is not real, but ideal . . . and useful. It's when you make-up elaborate as-if myths about those unknowable abstractions that reification becomes superstition.

    BTW, my Enformationism theory is all about the role of information in the Real world. The transcendent G*D concept is merely an unprovable Axiom, used as-in mathematics as a starting point for developing a provable theory. Scientists are currently proving the practical role of information in Physics, Biology, and Psychology. I merely look at the system of enformation as a whole.

    Axiom : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
  • A description of God?
    Physics, once more direct, is now but an
    Immaterial science of math-shadows,
    While mysticism, once but a fogged notion,
    Claims the direct observation of the Light.     — PoeticUniverse
    :up:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    I would use the terms a little differently than you do. — Pfhorrest
    That's OK. My terminology is derived mostly from Information Theory. Your "comprehensive system of philosophy" is similar to my Enformationism Worldview, except that my terminology tries to stick closer to modern science than to ancient philosophy. In any case, our worldviews are inherently colored by our personal experiences and preferences.

    A technical question aside here: how does one quote a previous post in this forum software? — Pfhorrest
    Drag the mouse to highlight a section of text, and a black box will appear with the word "Quote". After you click the box, the text will appear in the comment box at the bottom of the page, along with the name of the person quoted, and a notification will be added to that person's "You" profile.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    To me eternal means non-temporal and infinite means non-finite. These are to be understood only in an apophatic sense, not to be reified as substantive entities. Of course the tendency to do that reification is apparently perfectly natural for humans. I don't want to make any metaphysically positive claims on the basis of what seems merely "logically necessary". — Janus
    Yes. Until astronomers calculated that the universe suddenly emerged into space-time from nowhere and nowhen, the philosophical concepts of a supernatural God were inherently apophatic (definition by negation). But now we have positive evidence that the temporal physical universe is necessarily non-eternal. Which logically implies that some kind of cause must necessarily exist beyond space-time in the imaginary realm we call Eternity.

    Plus, modern developments in mathematics have forced philosophers to take Infinity seriously, as a "substantive" concept, in the sense of "essential". Infinity and Zero are not assumed to be physical entities, but metaphysical concepts that have a strong relationship to reality. They are not reified though, but merely accepted as logically necessary axioms for reasoning beyond the normal limitations of our experience. For example, before the Calculus was invented, prejudices against infinities prevented mathematicians from being able to calculate non-Euclidian geometry.

    Likewise, the sciences of Quantum Physics would be impossible, if practitioners were unable to accept paradoxical results as "logically necessary". :cool:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Insofar as you posit an intentional entity as first cause and director, I would say you have moved well beyond information theory, and into spookier regions than Lazlo and Bohm. — Janus
    If you feel that my notion of an intentional G*D is spooky, that's probably because you're thinking of the gods of Religion, instead of the god of Philosophy. The intention of G*D is encoded into the logical mathematical program we call Nature. There's no magic or mysticism in nature; it's all in the minds of people who are fearful or credulous.

    I don't think Laszlo and Bohm were intentionally into spooky stuff, but some of their hypothetical postulates have been equated by New Agers with Eastern esotericism. And speaking of supernatural spookiness, Madame Blavatsky (Theosophy) borrowed the pre-scientific Hindu hypothesis of an Etheric Plane for her theory of the Akashic Field, as a pseudo-scientific explanation for various traditional spiritual notions.

    That non-Christian account of impersonal good versus evil forces may have inspired the fictional religion of The Force in Star Wars. Except that The Force was supposedly generated by an energy field within all living beings. For those with a high Midichlorian count, magical and mystical powers were available. For example, Darth Vader could choke people without touching them. So I find the New Age notion of the powerful, but non-conscious & non-intentional, Akashic Field -- as a substitute for traditional intervening & meddling supernatural gods -- to be associated with some weird magical & mystical & unnatural & spooky stuff. :gasp:


    "In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Insofar as you posit an intentional entity as first cause, I would say you have moved well beyond information theory, and into spookier regions than Lazlo and Bohm. — Janus
    That's because I have moved beyond the Big Bang, into the realm of Eternity and Infinity. If you're going to postulate god-like functions, you need to include creation of reality as we know it. :smile:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    then you should read Lazlo. Bohm's thesis — Janus
    I've read books by Laszlo and Bohm, Their ideas and speculations are similar to mine, but they focus more on the spooky fringes of Quantum Physics, while I try to stay closer to more mundane Information Theory, which is the basis of my thesis.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    "metaphysics" to mean the parts of philosophy that underlie the physical sciences — Pfhorrest
    In my Enformationism thesis, I use the term "Meta-Physics" in a similar manner to your suggestion.

    "Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns).
    Forces are causal relationships between things.
    Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).    "

    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    All of what you say is fair enough, but it is no less speculative, and I think even even more so, than quantum and akashic fields. — Janus
    A First Cause of the evolving world is indeed speculative, but it is also logically necessary (if the world has not existed eternally). Quantum Fields are not empirical observations, but logical constructs to explain a variety of paradoxical observations. Like G*D, Fields are not defined in terms of material properties, but in terms of immaterial functions. So my hypothesis of G*D is scientific in that sense. It is intended to explain how Information (an Ideal concept) is so ubiquitous in the universe : i.e. the world is an idea in the mind of G*D (Idealism).

    The modern usage of the 20th century mystical notion of an "Akashic Field" -- a pseudo-Hindu word for "aether" or "vacuum" -- is commonly defined in terms of a "Quantum Vacuum", which as I said above is a hypothetical logical construct that does not exist as a real thing. This emptiness is supposed to "record" events in its "memory". But the mystics can't explain how nothingness could record anything, except for an implicit magical deus ex machina, similar to Maxwell's metaphorical "daemon" organizing atoms of a gas. It was a thought experiment to illustrate a statistical concept, and not intended to be taken literally. But mystics tend to take a lot of metaphors and analogies literally.

    If the Akashic Field was presented as the First Cause of the Big Bang, it would be equivalent to G*D or Brahman. Does anyone claim that an eternal Akashic Field created the real world from its infinite metaphysical memory?

    Maxwell's Daemon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    The teleology of evolution: a big question. I tend to reject the idea. — Janus
    Then you would be in step with the majority of materialist scientists, who see evolution as a "random walk". But I see evolution as a "hockey stick" path of upward emergence. I won't go into the technical details, but which pattern you "see" will determine your position on Teleology.
    Random Walk : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Images/random%20walk.png
    Hockey Stick Path : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Images/hockey%20stick%20graph.jpg

    knowledge of the Universe is somehow held in what he calls the "Akashic Field" — Janus
    Akashic and Quantum "Fields" are mathematical abstractions. And nobody knows how Quantum Entanglement works. So you could attribute any sort of powers to them, and rest assured that you wouldn't be proven wrong. Only the First Cause is logically necessary to explain everything in the evolving universe, born in an act of cosmic creation. That Creative Cause was either an accident or intentional. Which kind of cause you "see" will determine your position on Intention.

    Are you suggesting something like a Hegelian dialectical logic or logos that drives the evolution of the Universe, — Janus
    Yes. Something like that. But I call it EnFormAction because of the universal role of Information in evolution.

    I see no need to speak of intention at all — Janus
    If evolution was completely random, with no directional patterns at all, then there would be no need to speak of intention. But, if evolution appears to display tendencies (directional change), then the cause of that consistent non-random behavior would be an intention (goal-directed purpose). In the real world, perfect randomness is never seen, because there is an inherent countervailing tendency toward order. Indeed, the predictability of that emergent order is the foundation of Science. So, the question remains, what caused the "swerve" from random Chaos to orderly Cosmos; from Entropy to Enformy?

    Random : lack of pattern or predictability in events; does not follow an intelligible pattern
    Tend : regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.; go or move in a particular direction.
  • A Genderless God
    this argument is not seeking to feminize God but rather to view God as a genderless being. — Bridget Eagles
    The so-called "philosopher's god" was typically viewed as an abstraction with no physical features. But the gods of traditional religions typically reflected the stratified social conditions of ancient times. Tribal gods would tend to be more egalitarian, but the gods of urbanized people were modeled on their kings, who were almost always militaristic males. They wouldn't have viewed their gods as oppressive to women, since they didn't see their wives as oppressed, but merely playing different roles in society, a step above children and slaves.

    Women in our modern cultures, who have jobs outside the home, and mechanical slaves to do much of the scut work, live in a different world. But they are still dominated by men, simply because the male gender characteristics (e.g. aggressiveness) haven't evolved to suit the more integrated organization of society. But women can now imagine a deity who is more female friendly than those arrogant ancient tyrants.

    In my personal worldview, there is still a role for a First Cause deity. However, that role is defined not to reflect modern, slightly more democratic & equitable social conditions, but to suit the logical requirements of an immaterial world creator outside of space & time. My G*D is an abstract metaphysical entity, with mental properties similar to those of humans, but no material physical body. That means no hormones or emotions, and no genitals or gender. Not even a hermaphrodite.

    Unfortunately, I suspect that such a vaguely defined deity would not appeal to most people, including theistic feminists. It would be suitable only for those who are philosophically inclined, and who have less need for the community of the various religious tribes who still try to maintain a tenuous connection to those ancient personalized gods & goddesses.


    Philosopher's god : "The God of the ancient philosophers is an abstract object; he has all the reality of the square root of 16. This so-called God is not alive. He is beyond time and change, not the Ancient of Days but the Eternal One. The God of the philosophers is passionless, incapable of being moved to hot anger and tears by the human condition. He is serene and untroubled. . . . "
    http://home.nwciowa.edu/wacome/gbgp.htm
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    but I see no need to anthropomorphize it as any kind of intentional entity. — Janus
    I began my philosophical journey as an Agnostic. But I couldn't avoid the intuition of intention behind evolution. Unless the Big Bang was an astronomically unlikely random accident as many scientists prefer to believe, there must have been some kind of Intention (tendency) to create direction out of randomness (order out of disorder).

    Epicurus and Lucretius called that necessary directional impetus "the Swerve", but ironically assumed that it was a fortuitous accident caused by the random jostling of atoms (now known as "quantum fluctuations"). I was also forced by simple logic to assume that some outside force caused the Big Bang to become a progressive evolving organism, instead of a dissipative explosion in space. There is no pattern in pure randomness. Without an imposed signal, your TV screen will randomly jitter & jostle & fluctuate forever. You may occasionally see a brief fluctuation that looks like something; but no ongoing organization like evolution.

    Evolution is characterized by both Randomness and Selection -- the disorder (freedom) provides a variety of options, and the tendency toward order (intention) makes a choice (selection) between alternative possibilities, converting them into actualities. This is how computers work, and the selection criteria are provided by the Programmer. So Intention (purpose) is an assumed property of my axiomatic First Cause. As you implied before, an abstract do-nothing deity with no purpose would not be worthy of the name "G*D".

    My use of the word "intention" is a metaphor, from our experience as goal-seeking humans, for something beyond our comprehension. As a projection of human mental teleology, it is inherently anthropomorphic; but it refers to an abstract concept, not a person.

    The Swerve : "The second reason for thinking that atoms swerve is that a random atomic motion is needed to preserve human freedom and 'break the bonds of fate,'." https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/

    For me beyond the "here and now" is simply the inconceivable. — Janus
    Speaking of "beyond comprehension", projecting our knowledge of here & now into the unknown realms of possibility is something people do all the time. For example, the concepts of "zero" and "infinity" are literally inconceivable, except for the human talent for analogy. Similarly, imagining invisible agencies (gods, spirits) is a common tactic for explaining mysteries that are otherwise inconceivable. As I said before, my "G*D" concept is a metaphor (and an axiom) that allows me to make sense of the role of Information in the real world that is otherwise "beyond comprehension". That's what philosophers do when faced with mysteries. Even pragmatic scientists are forced to resort to imaginative metaphors in their quest to understand the fringes of reality (e.g. quantum fields are not real). G*D is not real.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    The modern trend is for a metaphysics of becoming (process) to supplant or uproot the traditional metaphysics of being. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes. Most world religions view the world as beginning in a high point as a Garden of Eden or a Golden Age, from which we are now degenerating into corruption. For them, the only answer is divine intervention, or a kingdom of heaven, or the escape hatch of nirvana.

    Yet, counter-intuitively, I see evidence that the world began as a seed, and is evolving into a great oak. We are now in the process of becoming something more and better -- I can't say what exactly, But perfection (Omega Point??) is still a long way off. So, my mid-term metaphysics is to read the script of emerging nature, and to play my minor role in what we are becoming.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    All I was saying was that for those who need a god, an impersonal god will not cut the mustard — Janus
    I am well aware that the majority of people will not be interested in an abstract "philosopher's god". Some will prefer a Father god, who brings rain for crops and defends them from evil. Others will prefer a Mother god, who gives unconditional love and succors the afflicted. A few capitalists will hold out for a Prosperity god who brings them luck in their financial affairs. And probably most will want some kind of Santa Claus god, who fulfills their wishes for all kinds of goodies.

    That's OK with me. To each his own. My G*D does not require faith or evangelism. My G*D is personal for me, in that it fills a god-shaped hole in my heart, with information (Enformation) to make sense of the ins & outs & ups & downs of the world.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Seriously, though I think we can reason philosophically ad infinitum without ever entertaining the idea of a first cause — Janus
    Certainly. But the human brain, with experience only of the physical world, has no intuitive grasp of unbounded concepts such as "Infinity" or "Eternity". So most people who think beyond the here & now, tend to reason in terms of turtles-all-the-way-down. :smile:

    Fortunately, the human mind has evolved to go beyond the space-time limitations of physics into the imaginative realm of metaphysics. But imagination needs to be grounded in physics in order to avoid veering off into the realm of fantasy. Which is why the philosopher-pioneers begin their theoretical explorations of Terra Incognita from the established harbor of pragmatic Science. Meanwhile, the contented settlers can live their whole lives without ever entertaining a thought of ultimate causes.

    Turtles-all-the-way-down : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Not all scientific thinking, or even much of it all seems to rely on the notion of "first cause" though. — Janus
    True. But most scientific thinking is looking through a microscope for prior proximate causes, such as the billiard ball that impacted the one you are focused on. Philosophical thinking though looks beyond the local effects and asks about the ultimate cause : in billiards, it's the intention of the pool shooter to cause the 5 ball to go into the corner pocket.

    Cosmologists are philosopher/scientists who consider the universe as a whole rather than as a collection of unrelated parts. They have tracked causation (energy exchanges) all the way back to the "beginning of time". That's as far back as the physical evidence goes. So most accept the Big Bang as the original "cause" of everything that occurs in space-time. But some are not satisfied with the pool cue answer, and ask what then caused the stick (Big Bang) to strike?

    Since we have no physical evidence to go by, we must use logical inference to fill-in the blanks. Reductionist scientists simply fill-in the "a priori" ellipsis with the assumption of "more of the same" (physics) all the way back to infinity. But holistic thinkers tend to look for a metaphysical answer, such as the intention of some ultimate "buck stops here" First Cause. That's the difference between pragmatic Science, and theoretical Philosophy. Metaphysical theories have no "cash value" for those who are only interested in short-term return on their investment of research and cogitation.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Not all reasoning must be based on the kind of linear thinking that demands a first cause, though. — Janus
    True. But I tried the other kind of "reasoning", which results in the babel of world religions.

    The impersonal god model seems to be the same, for all intents and purposes, as the no-god model, so a god is not needed at all for "stoic character and freedom". — Janus
    True. But as I said, it's a scientific axiom for philosophical reasoning about the world, not a faith for making "a profound transformative difference." If you want a "transformative difference" get a baby . . . or a dog. :smile:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    As to the need for a "first cause" I think that is just an artifact of linear human thinking. — Janus
    That's another way of saying "an artifact of human reasoning". Which was my intent, as opposed to nonlinear intuition or faith. This impersonal god-model could change your life, by changing your worldview, from sycophantic supplication or passive resgnation, to Stoic character and philosophical wisdom. :smile:

    PS__I don't believe in G*D. It's just an axiom for interpreting the vicissitudes of life.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    The scientific method has been widely applied and has produced vast and seriously impressive results. That's what supports it. — S

    It's sad that I have to tell you this, but this is false.     — Metaphysician Undercover
    MU, S seems to be confident that empirical science has the answer to all relevant questions. But that depends on what you consider relevant. For philosophers, Metaphysics is relevant.
    Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    The September issue of Scientific American magazine is titled : Truth, Lies, & Uncertainty, Searching for reality in unreal times. All of the articles cast doubt on the infallibility of reductive science. But one in particular might be instructive for Mr. S. George Musser's article is entitled : Virtual Reality, How close can physics bring us to a truly fundamental understanding of the world? Another term for "virtual reality" is Meta-Physics. He says, "The deeper physicists dive into reality, the more reality seems to evaporate. . . . Physical explanation replaces nouns with verbs." In other words, Quantum Physics is now struggling with Metaphysical questions.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    I can't see how Deacon's thesis will ever be testable, — Janus
    Deacon's notion of "the power of absence" may never be testable via empirical methods, but it can be theoretically useful, just as many spooky effects in physics can predict some strange behaviors (quantum entanglement, black holes, dark matter, chaos theory, etc). And we can visualize an Attractor mathematically with computer graphics. In Chaos theory, some system values tend to evolve toward a point in empty space as-if they were being pulled by an unknown force. Unfortunately for the scientists, "as-if" is a metaphysical question, where "as-is" is an empirical physical fact.
    Attractors : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

    One mathematical term for a living organism is "dissipative structure". Regarding the "motivation of attractors", the link above says : "Dynamical systems in the physical world tend to arise from dissipative systems: if it were not for some driving force, the motion would cease." Deacon thinks that the statistical inter-relationships of dissipative structures are the key to the emergence of Life from non-living matter.
    Dissipative Structures : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
    Note : see Glossary at bottom of article

    I'm not too keen on the idea of a creator; I think it is an anthropomorphic notion, whether it is merely a deistic or a full-blown theistic one. — Janus
    Due to my experience with fundamentalist Christian religion, I also became leery of all hear-say stories of invisible gods with human-like behaviors. But when I began developing my Enformationism worldview, I found that some kind of First Cause or "Enformer" was a necessary axiom in order to make sense of how the world works via enforming forces.

    If it makes you feel any better, my notion of G*D is definitely not anthropomorphic, but essentially Mathematical or Logical. But lacking any relatable Physical imagery, the notion of a Metaphysical deity is much more difficult for non-philosophers to imagine. That's why even Monotheists have needed some physical idols (such as images of a man on a cross) to help them relate to a deity who exists both inside and outside the material (space-time) world.
    G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Home » Gnomon