Ok, I think that your view shares some similarities with Spinoza's but isn't compatible with it. After all, there is no 'real' cosmic evolution in Spinoza's view. Change is an illusory appearance that we percieve because of our limited perspective. In the highest way of seeing the world, there is no change. — boundless

Yes. I'm aware that Spinoza's 17th century worldview predated both 19th century Darwinian Evolution, and 20th century Big Bang theory. So I have updated my own worldview to include those challenges to the standstill world of Spinoza-God. Perhaps God's omniscient view of the world is like Einstein's Block Time*1, in which all possibilities exist concurrently, yet unchanging. But humans, observing only from inside the world system (limited perspective), can only see one snapshot at a time, then merge those stills into an ever-changing illusory movie. For all practical purposes, I assume the "persistent" illusion of ever-changing Time is true. But for philosophical interests, I can imagine a god's-eye-view of the Cosmos, as illustrated in the image below*2 {note --- Enfernity is my mashup of Eternity and Infinity}. Of course, these imaginary metaphors should not be taken literally. :smile:

PS___ The small gray circles represent hypothetical multiverses that only an infinite-eternal God would have "time" to create. Again, not to be taken literally.


*1. Block Time or Eternalism :
In the philosophy of space and time, eternalism is an approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time. . . . .
It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

I see your point here. But Spinoza would deny any kind of autonomy for human beings. He would say that if we have free will, we would have some kind of independence from God and, therefore, we would be individual substances — boundless

Again, this is a matter of perspective. From God's perch outside the physical universe, all things, including humans, are totally dependent on the Source, the Potential, the Omnipotent. But, from a human perspective inside our little world bubble, rational creatures have developed some independence from Absolute Determinism. We "little gods" are indeed dependent relative to God/Omniverse, but independent relative to our local environment, as indicated in image *3. That doesn't make us Autonomous substances, but Relative instances. We are Free only relative to other creatures. :wink:

*2. GOD EXISTS IN ENFERNITY

*3. GOD OUTSIDE SPACE-TIME

Anyway, as I said, I was presenting Spinoza's thought (as I understood it). I was actually a Spinozist in 2011-2013, but now my views are quite different. For instance I am neither convinced by his metaphysics (especially I quite disagree with his complete denial of any kind of free will) nor by his convinction that philosophy is 'liberating'. I do find his views fascinating and they did left a strong impression in me. — boundless

That is of interest to me. Especially because, on this forum, the harshest critic of my personal worldview, Enformationism, also claims to be a Spinozist. I wouldn't call myself a Spinozist, since I only know of his ideas via second hand accounts. I told him (the critic) that my philosophical world model is, like Spinoza's, more akin to Science than Religion, but it also assumes that cosmic Evolution is not aimless & accidental, but governed & directed by logical/mathematical internally-coded laws similar to a computer program.

I know nothing of the implicit lawmaker/mathematician/programmer --- or He/r telos --- but I like Plato's notion of Logos as a label for the ordering principle of the universe. Apparently, even such a non-theological notion as Logos or First Cause or Prime Mover is too close to his despised Catholic dogma for his comfort. And any intimation of transcendence (i.e. pre-big-bang) offends his Immanentist beliefs.

Since at least one species of gradually evolved creatures has developed a somewhat objective & rational understanding of world events, I conclude that A> the ability to stand outside our emotion-driven animal nature, and B> the power to generate unique personal ideas (abstract representations, images, models, goals) of our own, allows us to become local centers of Will within the universal "Willpower" (motive force) of the universal thermodynamic system, otherwise dominated by destructive Entropy. Which, in effect, makes us humans the "little gods" of the world. Hence, we have begun to create sub-human creatures of our own, such as complex machines and artificial intelligence, that execute the will of their programmers.

How do you think Spinoza would judge such a 21st century update of his own 17th century worldview? :smile:

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to the ancient worldviews of Materialism and Idealism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's also a Theory-of-Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformy :
In the Enformationism thesis, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. Physicists inappropriately labeled that positive force as "Negentropy".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

↪Gnomon
I find some amusement in the length this thread has reached, given what seems so obvious to me, that life is definitely, obviously, overwhelmingly NOT fair and just. Maybe we who are here to comment are the lucky beneficiaries of life's unfairness and injustice? — BC

I too, am surprised at the mississippi river length, and off-topic delta, that the OP's yes or no question has prompted. I suppose its a sign that Fairness & Justice are touchy topics for philosophically and religiously inclined posters. One post above came close to summarizing the contentious issue behind an ancient philosophical conundrum. :smile:

Who's responsible for fairness & justice, us or god?
"I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.
That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible." — Banno

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon
I don't think so. But he would not say that a 'sage' is like someone 'driven by innate animal urges', for obvious reasons. — boundless

I was not familiar with Spinoza's concept of a "Sage". Apparently it's a human who "participates" in the divine nature. Is that something like the "wisdom" that philosophers seek? Does such wisdom allow a Sage to find ways to work around fatalistic Determinism, in order to exercise Free Will? Does that semi-divine willpower make us the "little gods" of this world, who break free from physical limits and animal urges? :chin:

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts — Gnomon
Is this Whole eternal and not dependent from its parts? — boundless

Yes. The hypothetical all-encompassing source of all possibilities is assumed to be transcendent and Holistic : more than the sum of its parts. This is in contrast to the immanent deity of reductive PanTheism. Moreover, the notion of PanEnDeism, although metaphorical, is intended to be amenable to rational science & philosophy, although its transcendence makes it inaccessible to empirical evidence. :halo:

Also, IMO Spinoza's 'solution' to the problem of suffering is to see everything sub specie aeternitatis and thus transcend every individual perspective. In the distorted individual perspective the world might appear 'unfair' but when the world is seen sub specie aeternitatis, such a judgment is transcended. — boundless

So, from God's timeless perspective, human suffering is inconsequential? The Christian "solution" to suffering is to give some humans a remedial do-over (second life) in a timeless heavenly Paradise. For non-Christians though, maybe Stoic acceptance is the best we can hope for? :cool:

Causa sui' means uncaused and yes it is deemed the ultimate 'cause' of all material things like everything else, as said in other posts. — boundless

I may have to add Causa Sui to my lexicon of First Causes and Prime Movers. Some Forum posters don't believe in ultimate causes or principles ; preferring to think in terms of observable serial Effects rather than a hypothetical (imaginary) unique self-existent Ultimate Cause. I guess that's the main distinction between the worldviews of practical Science and theoretical Philosophy. :nerd:

I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.
That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible. — Banno

That may be the implication raised in the article that motivated me to start this thread. But I didn't express it so succinctly. Some Theists seem to take the attitude : "let go and let God". Ironically, a few respondents seem to have assumed that's what I was trying to say. If so, what would be the point of philosophy? :smile:

BTW, Spinoza also, if I recall correctly, believed that absolutely everything was inevitable. This is a form of 'determinism' which is stronger than Laplace: Laplace's determinism doesn't fix the initial conditions. In Spinoza's way it is even impossible to think that things could have been different, even in principle. — boundless

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin:

Yes, but note that for Spinoza and for many of the 'holists' the 'Whole' is, in fact, ontologically independent and its existence does not depend on its 'parts'. This is why IMO a fully consistent pantheism might necessarily lead to some kind of acosmism, where the 'parts' are merely illusions. — boundless

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts. Unlike Theism, this view does not presume that the parts have any inkling of the mind of God. And it does not imagine that humans are the darlings of the deity. So, any natural injustice or unfairness is not personally directed, but merely the nonpartisan workings of a material physical world, in which some creatures live on the life of other creatures. And some creatures develop moral qualms about killing other living things.

PED does not necessarily "divest itself" of a thinking god --- I suppose that's a Christian put-down --- but merely denies that the Whole reveals its thoughts, if any, to the parts. So the philosophical "parts" can only speculate about knowing the "Mind of God", as Steven Hawking put it. And the Prophets just make-up ideas & opinions that they think God could/should have regarding his Chosen People. As I understand it, PED does not go so far as to assume that finite dependent creatures are mere powerless cogs in the cosmic machine. If you feel & act as-if you are morally free, then you have some degree of FreeWill. But that's a whole n'other thread. :nerd:

Yes. But note that he viewed his God as a refinement of the 'God' of the philosophers and theologians of his time. Certainly not a 'material source' of everything. — boundless

The philosophers of his time were just beginning to depart from the party line of Catholic theologians. So Spinoza's deistic deity must have seemed radical to many fellow philosophers. Was his causa sui not deemed to be the First Cause of all material things? :smile:



Panendeism vs Panentheism :
Panentheism holds that God exerts a controlling effect on the universe; this opposes panendeism, which denies that God is involved…Panendeism divests itself from an explicitly thinking God. Panendeism specifically holds that there is an aspect of reality, different from physical reality, extending into a non-thinking formless and changeless, awareness realm.
https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Panendeism

Acosmism, in philosophy, the view that God is the sole and ultimate reality and that finite objects and events have no independent existence. Acosmism has been equated with pantheism, the belief that everything is God.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/acosmism

I do see Wayfarer as prosecuting a moral crusade, so yeah, I did introduce the term. It was you that suggested that the whole of philosophy has been a moral crusade and I asked you for examples and to explain why you see the chosen example(s) as constituting a moral crusade. — Janus

No. The term "moral crusade" sounds like a militant Christian concept, not a peaceful Philosophical quest for an ethical society. The bloody medieval crusades were "prosecuted" by physically and legalistically attacking unbelievers, as directed by the crusader's "king" in heaven : "in hoc signo vinces". I doubt that would think in such terms ; I certainly don't. And I don't know of any comparable philosophical "crusades", involving sword-wielding metaphysicians. The idea sounds absurd.

However, Way does have an erudite personal worldview, that is much less ambiguous than many that are "prosecuted" on this forum. And he defends that philosophical position astutely, without attacking with swords drawn. But yes, the work of Philosophy is inherently ambiguous, due not to any personal uncertainty, but to the difficulty of postulating metaphysical concepts in a materialistic language. :grin:

For as I have noted, Spinoza there defines eternity as existence conceived “to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing” (E1d8), and he adds the explication that eternal existence “cannot be explained by duration or time, even if the duration is conceived to be without beginning or end.” — Gnomon
Yes! Spinoza's eternity is timelessness, not infinite duration. — boundless

Yes, but : us space-time creatures can only imagine essential timelessness, by analogy with the contingent & ever-changing world of matter & energy. So, the Necessary Being is a metaphor, logically defined into existence as the exception to the natural rule of Change & Contingent Existence : here today and gone tommorrow. My own analogy is with 1 & 0 (all or nothing) in computer code. which serve as brackets or bookends (beginning & end), yet are not countable numbers themselves, but conceptual placeholders. The static eternal "brackets" stand in contrast to the fleeting events of sensory reports.

So God is a concept to define temporal existence, not a mundane material creature like ourselves. Hence, Materialists deny such Ideal imaginary existence as literally Unreal, Immaterial, and Irrelevant to flesh & blood creatures. Consequently, the only justification for belief in an invisible nothingness is to serve as a logical Background against which to "see" the figures & forms of reality. Reductive scientists, like Laplace, have no need for such superfluous hypothetical notions. But Holistic philosophers find such concepts necessary for their quest to probe the limits of reality : the General, the Principle, the Whole, of which all real things are mere specks of dust.

Do you think Spinoza would agree with the label : "god of the philosophers", as contrasted with the God of theologians, and the godless-but-fecund Material World of scientists? :chin:

Anyway, IMO Spinoza's philosophy is unaffected by the beginning of our universe. In fact, maybe Spinoza would said that our 'universe' is merely a mode and therefore it can have a beginning. — boundless

I agree that Spinoza's notion of "Eternity" is not to be interpreted in a space-time sense. But modern interpreters might conclude that a transcendent or supramundane God (beyond space-time) could only be known/imagined via speculation or Faith : like the infinite-eternal Multiverse hypothesis. :smile:

What does Spinoza mean by eternity?
For as I have noted, Spinoza there defines eternity as existence conceived “to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing” (E1d8), and he adds the explication that eternal existence “cannot be explained by duration or time, even if the duration is conceived to be without beginning or end.”
https://academic.oup.com/book/2287/chapter-abstract/142414886?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The modes are not parts of the substance! If they were, the Substance would not be an absolute. As 180 Proof correctly said 'our physical universe' itself is merely a mode of the substance. Modes are just 'aspects' of the natura naturata which from our 'point of view' seem discrete objects or 'parts'.
Regarding the 'actualization'... maybe the whole 'natura naturata' can be thought to be an actualization of 'natura naturans'. There is absolutely nothing outside God in his metaphysics. So IMO saying that God is a 'Potential' misses this. — boundless

As I mentioned before, I'm not an erudite Spinoza scholar --- unlike , who haughtily agreed with my deplorable ignorance. But, since my amateur philosophical perspective is similar in some ways to Spinoza's, I'm still trying to learn where his 17th century model and my 21st century worldview differ.

Regarding my use of the term "Potential", it's a generalization & abstraction of the concept of causal Power ; not necessarily a god. Yet, if Spinoza's all-encompassing "God" has creative power*1 , then it is also the boundless Pool-of-Potential from which all space-time material things and immaterial statistical Modes are manifested. That doesn't mean the Eternal Substance is diminished in any way by the distinction between temporary & local Modes (attributes) and eternal & infinite Essence. The particular Modes are contained within the holistic Substance, not separate things. Hence, my notion of Creative Holism. Which is generally compatible with Bergson's Creative Evolution*2. If Spinoza's Nature is neither creative nor intentional, I don't understand why he would call it a "god".

But, is Evolution creative? I suppose that depends on your definition of "creativity". Some say it's only an aimless Algorithm ; but cosmic history certainly seems to reveal the emergence of features like Life & Mind that are not explainable by a simple explosion & expansion of space-time. Evolution from simple to complex goes against Entropy, and seems more like a purposeful program. Whether Natura is intentional or not is also debatable, and a topic for a different thread. But, according to the link below*3, Spinoza's Deus is more like a blind erratic force of Nature than a traditional creative God. Which may be why likes that literally absurd lawless worldview. But my worldview attempts to explain the apparent --- dare I say "obvious"? --- creativity of nature in philosophical terms that go back to Plato. So, it seems that my Panendeistic Nature God*4 explains the progressive "arrow of time", while Spinoza's might better define the orderless background of Chaos from which Plato's orderly Cosmos, including Life & Mind, emerges. Am I missing something here?

Back to the holistic nature of Spinoza's Natura, I tend to think of the Modes, not as parts of a multi-part assembly, but as various expressions of boundless Power/Potential. In that dynamic definition, a changeable mode is like a temporary State*5 of an eternal Substance. By analogy with the hypothetical universal Quantum energy Field, any Particle is merely a local disturbance or manifestation or mode or actualization of the general creative causal power of the continuous energetic system. Is Spinoza's "God" an eternal-infinite-universal energy field from which all Modes emerge? :nerd:


*1.Mode vs Substance :
'That which is in itself,' i.e. that, the reality of which is self-dependent, is what Spinoza calls 'Substance': 'that, which is in something else,' i.e., that whose reality is dependent, is called a 'mode,' or state of substance.
https://academic.oup.com/book/32374/chapter-abstract/268649395?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- Does "God" divide Modes from Substance, or do the modes-we-call-human create such distinctions? If the latter, whence the human ability to create that-which-is-not-given?

*2. Bergson's Creative Evolution :
The theory presented an evolution in which a free emergence of the individual intelligence could be recognized. It was thus wholly distinct from previous deterministic hypotheses that were either mechanistic or teleological and represented evolution as conditioned either by existing forces or by future aims.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/creative-evolution-philosophy

*3. Spinoza's God : accidental or intentional?
This builds on a point he made earlier when he said that if God were to act with a purpose he would be making decisions based on something outside himself, like a person setting up a target and aiming at it. For Spinoza this is absurd; there is nothing outside of God and nothing that God could lack.
https://matthewzgindin.medium.com/spinoza-in-plain-english-pt-10b-god-acts-without-purpose-book-1-appendix-eda9d48cba67
Note --- Is a human's Purpose something outside himself, or an expression of his human nature, and his creative ability? If comprehensive Natura is able to change, the novelty would have to be internal : as a man changes his mind.

*4. God as eternal Potential, Nature as space-time Actual :
Is Space-Time Nature a mode of eternal Potential ; perhaps born about 14 billion years ago, for no apparent reason? "Panendeism" : look it up.

*5. States are not things or objects, but snapshots of continuous processes. Hence, mental or subjective. Only an analytical mind can imagine an ongoing physical process as-if momentarily halted. That talent was codified in the mathematical concepts of Calculus and Differentials, as applied to dynamic systems and non-linear geometric curves. The fundamental idea of calculus is to study change by studying instantaneous bits of change, that only exist in imagination.

Hoffman makes the same mistake as Kant, supposing that there is a really, truly world out there that is different to and inaccessible from the world we live in.
But the world is the world we live in. — Banno

That sounds like a statement of metaphysical Materialistic belief*1 . But Kant was a philosopher. He was not talking about the world we "live in" (objective reality), but about the world we "think in" (subjective ideality). Do you think the world we live & breathe in is the same as the world we imagine? If the only "world" was the physical environment, why do we amateur philosophers so often argue about what is real and what is illusion? If we all saw the same world-model, why do we disagree on its properties and qualities? Was Einstein also mistaken in his frame-of-reference theory of Relativity?

Physical Science studies its macro-scale properties, and over centuries has gradually come to a stable understanding of its material structure. But Quantum Science has found that, on the fundamental scale, those classical properties are not so stable and certain. For example, the table you see before you as a solid object, is now defined by quantum science as mostly empty space with a few bits of condensed energy. So which "reality" does Philosophy argue about? Kant's hypothetical ding an sich was not postulated as a "real" physical object, but as an ideal metaphysical concept. Hoffman's theory is not about sensable objective reality, but about our subjective conception of that reality.

Which world do you live in? The scientific world of sight & touch, or the philosophical world of imaginary worldviews? This forum, as indicated by its name, is for the latter. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical Materialism :
The metaphysics of materialism is a belief system held in large swathes of academia in the same manner, and often for the same reasons, that religious beliefs are held in fundamentalist organizations, argues Dr. Quinn, with 30 years of academic experience to substantiate her views.
“We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Anais Nin (1961)
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/materialism-in-academia-is-a-fundamentalist-belief-system/reading/
Note : Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

Some interpreters seem to think that Spinoza was a modern 'scientific pantheism' who identified 'God' with our physical world. I am not saying that they cannot be defended somehow, but IMO they are implausible because Spinoza did not see himself as an 'innovator' and used in a different ways the concepts of 'classical philosophy' (derived mainly from Plato and Arisotle). — boundless

Obviously, Spinoza's identification of God with Nature, sounds like both Pantheism and Immanentism. But, I interpret his deus sive natura as more like Plato's Logos : an essential principle, not a material thing ; an amorphous Ideal, not a space-time Object. That essence could be interpreted as the immaterial Whole of which all material things are parts ; or the unbounded Aristotelian Potential of which all physical objects are Actualizations.

As a creative causal Essence, though, this Logos or Potential might not create intentionally*1, but more like accidental Evolution. However, even Darwinian evolution has created material things (us) with philosophical minds. Moreover, as a scientific concept, Evolution is guided by "natural laws" and powered by physical Energy. Which may be merely two of God's "infinite attributes", but are of prime importance to creatures who seek to understand how & why this creative process works. Those directional Laws & Causes --- understandable to humans only metaphorically*2 --- are necessarily limitations on Infinity and Eternity. :smile:


*1. In fact, Spinoza's God is an entirely impersonal power, and this means that he cannot respond to human beings' requests, needs and demands. Such a God neither rewards nor punishes – and this insight rids religious belief of fear and moralism. Second, God does not act according to reasons or purposes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/21/spinoza-ethics-god-human-traits

*2. Natural Forces & Laws are not material things, but general principles. Metaphorically, like a quantum particle that exists only as undefined non-local statistical Potential until "collapsed" into finite local reality by an intentional probing observation. We humans only know those non-things by inference from their effects, not by direct knowledge of their essence or substance.

Note: how strong is his "case" such that evolution is refuted. That is, does evolution lead to an absurd conclusion? — Gregory

You may have taken his metaphorical language too literally. Hoffman makes no attempt to "refute" Reality or Evolution. Instead, he takes Darwinian Evolution for granted, as the mechanism that produced human observers, such as scientists & philosophers, and assumes that a real world is out there.

Then, he merely notes that our knowledge of that vast & complex world is inherently, and necessarily, incomplete. Also, our personal worldview is an interpretation, not an observation. Moreover, as the link below implies, we create our own Ideal version of Reality by selectively omitting most of the available information. His metaphor portrays your perspective on the world as something like an icon on your computer or phone screen : it serves as an abstract symbol of the underlying world, and "hides" irrelevant details that are not necessary for your livelihood.

Whether his conclusion is "absurd" or not, largely depends on the worldview that you bring to the book. For a Christian or Muslim, the creator of the human mind is God, not an accidental fluke of random evolution. So, if you don't accept the concept of godless evolution, Hoffman's "conclusion" won't make sense. Unless perhaps, God wanted to spare you from certain harsh realities that are beyond your comprehension. :smile:

PS___ The "Reality" he refers to is your personal partial worldview : subjective vs objective reality.


What is the case against reality summary?
The Case against reality can be summed up succinctly. We are participants in the creation of reality, we operate using a species specific user interface which selects information that's out there and condenses it into information that guides our action.
https://wisewords.blog/book-summaries/case-against-reality-book-summary/

As I interpret Spinoza, there are two ways of 'seeing' the 'world'. First, there is the usual perspective, 'sub specie temporis' which does not contemplate 'Reality' as a whole. This perspective, for Spinoza, has the unfortunate 'side effect' that it suggests that the 'modes' are actually distinct entities, substances.

However, when the world is seen rigthly, Reality is seen as an'undivided Whole', the only One Substance, God, in a way that is actually reminiscent of Parmenides IMO or indian advaita Vedanta. He says that the human mind is eternal, but only when seen as a mode, not a substance. It's a bit like saying that a particular ocean wave belongs to the whole history of the ocean, which is seen as a single undivided entity. — boundless

I'm not very familiar with Parmenides or Advaita, so my own terminology would characterize the "two ways of seeing the world" as Holistic (Philosophy ; Idealism ; Holism ) or Particular (Science ; Physicalism ; Materialism). So, as an amateur philosopher, I try to view the world "as a whole". And IMHO the best summation of that worldview is the 1926 book by Biologist Jan Smuts : Holism and Evolution. It's intended to be a science book, but since it focuses on Wholes instead of Modes, it is basically a philosophy book. Are you familiar with that book, or the concept of Holism?

In my previous post, I asked you "I'm not a Spinoza expert, but regarding unbounded space-time, he seemed to assume that the material world, and his Nature God, was Eternal & Infinite*1. So how would he deal with modern Cosmology, which says that the universe had a sudden & inexplicable beginning of Space-Time-Matter-Energy? Where or when was boundless Natura Naturans before the Bang?" Do you have an opinion about Spinoza's opinion on that vexing modern question?

The typical Materialist/Physicalist answer has been some version of an infinite space-time Multiverse, with many re-starts or re-births : Godlike, except mindless. How else can we reconcile the circumstantial evidence for a particular space-time beginning, with the notion of Reality as an undivided and timeless whole? Personally, I think the key distinction is, as you noted, between single Substance or boundless Being or unmanifest Potential, and its many Modes or Instances or Things. But that sounds too close to traditional god-concepts for some of us. :smile:

PS___ For all practical purposes, I am in a space-time box. But, for philosophical purposes, I try to think outside the box.

I can see why you can call Spinoza an 'immanentist'. But at the same time it is a peculiar form of immanentism where the 'true reality' has an element of transcendence. Not in the sense that 'Natura Naturans' is something 'separate' from the modes but 'sub specie aeternitatis' only God is real (at this level the modes in some sense 'disappear', are transcended). — boundless

Understandably, the Catholic Church labeled Immanentism as a heresy. Which may add to its appeal for anti-catholic Immanentists. What was the "element of transcendence" in his reality : Eternity/Infinity? How can you transcend Infinity? How are modes-of-being transcended?

I'm not a Spinoza expert, but regarding unbounded space-time, he seemed to assume that the material world, and his Nature God, was Eternal & Infinite*1. So how would he deal with modern Cosmology, which says that the universe had a sudden & inexplicable beginning of Space-Time-Matter-Energy? Where or when was boundless Natura Naturans before the Bang?*2 :smile:


*1. Spinoza defined God as "a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence", and since "no cause or reason" can prevent such a being from existing, it must exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

*2. Eternity is a property that substance and modes have in common. Spinoza posits in E5p23 that “the human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which is eternal.” Thus, men have both an indefinite existence or duration, and an eternal one.
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28070/chapter-abstract/212085978?redirectedFrom=fulltext

they are composed of two elements — Gnomon
You can use as many "elements" as you want! — Apustimelogist

I was referring to electronic computer processing of information. In principle the registers could use any voltage, but in practice the voltage is ideally all or nothing --- 1 or 0, 100% or Zero, On or Off, 3.3V or 0V --- to minimize errors in communication. In any case, its the logical relationship between elements (1:0 or 1/0) that is interpreted as information. You could say that the rounded-off 1s and 0s are signs, with lots of space in between, that are not likely to be confused with each other, unlike 1.032 and 1.023.

The "elements" of Shannon information are typically limited to 1s & 0s. That's why it's called Binary Code. In Nature, including the human brain, information processing may not be that precise, hence non-binary --- just like some Hollywood celebrities. :grin:

Bits don't really work well as "fundamental building blocks," because they have to be defined in terms of some sort of relation, some potential for measurement to vary. IT does seem to work quite well with a process metaphysics though, e.g. pancomputationalism. But what about with semiotics? I have had a tough time figuring out this one. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Shannon's "bits" were basic to his theory, but can't be absolutely fundamental, because they are composed of two elements (1 & 0) plus the relationship between them. So, I think the metaphysical concept of Relation*1 (relativity) may be more essential, in that it is neither a composite material object nor a member of a mathematical series : the number line, of which 1 & 0 are the end points, the ideal brackets that enclose reality, not real in themselves. The only alternative to a Relation is an Absolute.

I'm not well-versed in academic Semiotics*1, but I don't think any particular sign, or even the general concept of sign, is fundamental, because signs/symbols always point to something else. You might say that Semiotics is also about Relations. And knowledge of relationships is the essence of Information & Reason & Logic : all metaphysical. As the link below*2 reveals, it's hard to even define Relation without referring to multiple non-fundamental entities, or to self-reference. :smile:


*1. Information general, Semiotics specific
Information is a vague and elusive concept, whereas the technological concepts are relatively easy to grasp. Semiotics solves this problem by using the concept of a sign as a starting point for a rigorous treatment for some rather woolly notions surrounding the concept of information.
https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5383733/101.pdf

*2. What is a relation in metaphysics?
Relations are ways in which several entities stand to each other. They usually connect distinct entities but some associate an entity with itself. The adicity of a relation is the number of entities it connects. The direction of a relation is the order in which the elements are related to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_(philosophy)

I said that Wayfarer does not present an unambiguous position. It looks like I misread you to be suggesting philosophy is commonly ambiguous, whereas I now see you were suggesting it has largely been a moral crusade. So, my bad for hasty reading. — Janus

No, the subtly denigrating term "moral crusade" --- implying a holy mission? --- characterization of 's posts, was yours, not mine. I said he was just doing Philosophy. Was Socrates on a "moral crusade" in Athens? If so, then maybe all of us petty philosophers should emulate his mission for reason. :smile:


What is the moral crusade theory?
moral crusade A social movement which campaigns around a symbolic or moral issue such as alcohol or pornography. Classic sociological accounts of moral crusades include Joseph R. Gusfield's study of the Temperance Movement, Symbolic Crusade (1963), and Louis A. Zurcher et al. , Citizens for Decency (1976)
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/moral-crusade

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

Scientism and materialism don't seem very popular on this site and I would be hard pressed to recall members here who identify this way. Can you name any?
People who find idealism dead wrong also include Christians, Muslims and other theists who are far from sympathetic to science or to materialism. — Tom Storm

That's not my experience on TPF. Although the few zealots for philosophical materialistic Scientism may just be more vocal and quick to attack any Idealist ideas than those who are less doctrinaire. When I disagree with their 17th century classical physics worldview, I call them out directly. But I won't name them for you. Ironically, they are hard-pressed to come-up with a label for my own unorthodox worldview, for which I created my own label --- and it's not Idealism. Also, I don't think would limit his own worldview to any Idealist doctrine, although he seems to be favorably inclined toward Kastrup's Analytical Idealism.

What Christians would find "dead wrong" about philosophical Idealism-in-general, and Analytical Idealism in particular, is the lack of specific Christian doctrinal elements*1. Also Kastrup's rejection of a literal interpretation of its mythology & symbology would be a deal breaker*2. Besides, Way's personal philosophy seems to be closer to secular Buddhism, which disavowed intervening gods in favor of self-help . My own personal worldview is closer to secular Deism, which for Christians is "not even wrong", because it relies on human Reason, instead of divine Revelation, to conclude the logical necessity for a First Cause of some kind, to avoid an infinite tower of turtles prior to the Big Bang. However, my worldview is completely compatible with Materialism (chemistry) and Physicalism (physics) in a scientific context, apart from Philosophy, the science of ideas (metaphysics). :smile:


*1. Philosophical Idealism and Christian Belief :
At the heart of the idealists’ discussion of God and the absolute, is the difficulty of defending the notion of a personal or relational Judaeo-Christian God with the absolute, which, as the purer Idealist philosophers of the day, Bradley and Bosanquet, pointed out, must be beyond our knowledge and fellowship.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/philosophical-idealism-and-christian-belief/

*2. Kastrup on Religion :
In my book, More Than Allegory, I have stated my views on religion: I think it is a valid and important part of human life that we neglect at our own peril. Religious mythology, although obviously not literally true, is symbolic of something that, while transcending our rational faculties, is integral and critical to being human.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/12/a-suggestion-for-church-reform.html

Christianity vs "false-teaching" Deism :
Deism teaches that all people can know and believe in a Supreme Being—the prime mover of all things—merely through the vehicle of reason. Historically, deists often held to a modified form of Christianity that emptied the faith of any supernatural elements while allowing its moral instruction to remain. Though it is more of a philosophical and religious set of ideals than an organized religion, deism offers an antisupernatural worldview as an alternative to Christian theism. . . . .
Scripture teaches the following:
The Supreme Being: There is only one true and living God, subsisting in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/field-guide-on-false-teaching-deism
Note --- Modern Deism typically makes no assertions about the nature of the hypothetical First Cause.

↪Gnomon
Firstly I haven't said there are no ambiguous claims from philosophers, but I don't believe philosophy in general is rife with them. So that said, how about you give a good example or two of what you take to be an ambiguous claim from a well-known philosopher. — Janus

I'm not the one that raised the question of ambiguity in this thread. So, it should be incumbent upon the raiser to give examples. However, for a starter, the article below gives an analysis and examples of a common bane of philosophical discussions.

You seem to think that 's posts are "rife with them". Admittedly, his somewhat Idealistic worldview seems, not just ambiguous but dead wrong, to those who are committed to a worldview of Materialism and Scientism. That's the ambiguity of opposing perspectives on reality. Is that where you are coming from? :smile:


Ambiguity :
Fun fact: the word ‘ambiguous’, at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is ambiguous: it can mean uncertainty or dubiousness on the one hand and a sign bearing multiple meanings on the other. I mention this merely to disambiguate what this entry is about, which concerns a word or phrase enjoying multiple meanings. In this sense, ambiguity has been the source of much frustration, bemusement, and amusement for philosophers, lexicographers, linguists, cognitive scientists, literary theorists and critics, authors, poets, orators and pretty much every other being who uses language regularly to communicate.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ambiguity/

Philosophy, Linguistics, & Semiology :
Saussure had a major impact on the development of linguistic theory in the first half of the 20th century with his notions becoming incorporated in the central tenets of structural linguistics. His main contributions to structuralism include his notion of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure

...disparagement of "mere speculation"... — Gnomon
Oh, go ahead and speculate. Just don't mistake speculation for fact. — Banno

Thanks for your blessing. I don't see many empirical "facts" presented on this philosophical forum. However, I do see quite a few unfounded assumptions, especially about material reality, that are used as-if factual to validate disparaging remarks. :smile:

I think a philosopher might be open to facing the truth of the nature of our minds, whatever that might be.
It sounds like you are saying that a philosopher is someone with a closed mind on the subject. Is that about right? — wonderer1

Wow! Where did you get that off-the-wall idea from an assertion about the relationship between Information and Logic? What then, is the truth about the true "nature of our minds"? Are you saying that the harsh truth is that the Mind is nothing more than a Brain? Or that Logic is objective and empirical?

Is the ability to discern the invisible logical structure of ideas & events & brains, a sign of a "closed" mind? Or is the ability to see the material constituents of things a sign of an "open brain"? Please clarify your veiled put-down. :smile:

In the Physicalism belief system, Metaphysics (i.e. Philosophy) is meaningless

↪Gnomon
Berkeley had a clear position. According to him the explanation for the persistence of things and the fact we all perceive the same things was that God has them in mind. If you want to participate in discussion and debate that purpose is defeated if you can't or won't declare and argue for a clear and consistent position. I'm not saying that discussion and debate is what philosophy is all about, just that it you want to do that, then have something unambiguous to present.

What Wayfarer does on here seems to me to be more social commentary, a kind of moral crusade, than philosophy. — Janus

When was the last time you saw a philosopher present an idea that was not ambiguous to someone? Empirical observations can be unambiguous when the physical object can be pointed to. But the topics we discuss on this forum, such as Justice, are inherently ambiguous due to the difficulty of transferring an idea in one mind to another mind, by means of language. Linguistic philosophy was proposed as an answer to that very problem. Unfortunately, just as empirical scientists have been frustrated in their search for the material Atom --- can you point to a hypothetical quark or its constituent color or flavor? --- philosophers have been seeking the linguistic or logical Atom for millennia.

Do you really think Berkeley's "clear position" was unambiguous, when it was immediately attacked by Materialists and Deists for its unstated assumption of miraculous interventions? You set a high standard for philosophy to meet. Years ago, when I left my church, a few members to ask "why?". When I gave my crude philosophical answer, one responded that "you are setting a high standard for God to meet". To that, I could only reply that the Monotheistic religions themselves set a rigorous standard for the "true God", so He could be distinguished from idols and false gods.

Materialism also has a clear position : if I can't see it or touch it, it doesn't exist. Which is why physicists persist in their quest for the fundamental Atom of Materialism. Today, mathematical physicists are resigned to the notion of an immaterial mathematical Field as the fundamental ground of reality. Yet, even that amorphous hypothetical entity has, in practice, been divided into four or five sub-fields, and dozens of sub-sub-fields. And you accuse of ambiguity? Hasn't philosophy itself, from the beginning, been a moral/ethical crusade? :nerd:


Linguistic philosophy is the view that many or all philosophical problems can be solved by paying closer attention to language, either by reforming language or by better understanding our everyday language. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, one prominent example being logical atomism. ___Wikipedia

It implies that humans have access to a special mechanism that isn't part of the rest of creation.
To believe in this version of semiotics, I am tasked with believing that God gave humanity access to mechanisms that are not available to mere mortal animals. — Treatid

Would you prefer to believe that Random Evolution "gave" some higher animals the "mechanism" of Reasoning? For philosophers, rationality is not a material machine, but the cognitive function of a complex self-aware neural network that is able to infer (to abstract) a bare-bones logical structure (invisible inter-relationships) in natural systems*1. Other animals may have some similar abilities, but for those of us who don't speak animal languages, about all we can do is think in terms of analogies & metaphors drawn from human experience.

Peirce's 19th century theory of Semiotics is very technical and over my head. Which "version of semiotics" are you referring to : Peirce's abstruse primitive discussion, or the more modern assessment which includes a century of evolving Information Theory*2? I suppose the OP is talking about the latter.

Besides, Peirce's notion of God*3 was probably somewhat cryptic and definitely unorthodox & non-traditional. So, a philosopher might as well substitute "Nature" for "God" as the Giver of a specialized mechanism for abstracting & symbolizing the logical structure of world systems. Would that be easier to "believe", in the context of this thread? Can you imagine Nature as a "living spontaneity"? :smile:


*1. Reason, in philosophy, is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Reason

*2. Information and Semiotics :
Information is a vague and elusive concept, whereas the technological concepts are relatively easy to grasp. Semiotics solves this problem by using the concept of a sign as a starting point for a rigorous treatment for some rather woolly notions surrounding the concept of information.
https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5383733/101.pdf

*3. C.S. Peirce's "Neglected Argument" for God :
"The endless variety in the world has not been created by law. It is not of the nature of uniformity to originate variation, nor of law to beget circumstance. When we gaze upon the multifariousness of nature we are looking straight into the face of a "living spontaneity." . . .
" … there is a reason, an interpretation, a logic in the course of scientific advance, and this indisputably proves to him who has perceptions of rational or significant relations, that man's mind must have been attuned to the truth of things in order to discover what he has discovered. It is the very bedrock of logical truth."
https://www.icr.org/article/cs-peirces-neglected-argument/

↪Wayfarer
At issue is what counts as a measurement. You presume it must involve a conscious being, because you want consciousness to be a substance within the universe. Others have different ideas. Again, mere speculation. Shut up and calculate. — Banno

Sorry to butt in again. But your disparagement of "mere speculation"*1 is a knock on theoretical Science and Philosophy, and not appropriate for a post on The Philosophy Forum. I suppose, like many TPF posters, you view Philosophy as a red-headed step-child of Materialist Science, with aberrant genes inherited from its disreputable parent of institutional Religion.

But probably views General Philosophy*2 (born in ancient times & cultures in opposition to irrational beliefs & gossipy rumors) as the parent of Modern Empirical Science, born in the 17th century in direct opposition to Authoritarian Theology, and focused on Reductive rather than General understanding.

A materialist measurement views the physical yardstick as the judge of accuracy and factuality. But who made & marked the stick with arbitrary increments (meters vs yards)? The etymology of the word "to Measure", comes from Latin "mensura", and the root "mens-"*3 refers back to the Mind that created the the concept of rational regulation of an undifferentiated world*4. So, Way is philosophically correct that, absent a "conscious being", no measurement takes place in the material world. :smile:


*1. Science and Speculation :
"Despite wide recognition that speculation is critical for successful science, philosophers have attended little to it. When they have, speculation has been characterized in narrowly epistemic terms : a hypothesis is speculative due to its lack of evidential support"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-020-00370-w

*2. General philosophy, also known as metaphysics or ontology, explores fundamental questions about the nature of reality, existence, and knowledge.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-distinguish-the-general-and-technical-world-of-philosophy

*3. The Latin word mens expresses the idea of "mind" and is the origin of English words like mental and dementia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens

*4. Measurement problem :
A thought experiment called Schrödinger's cat illustrates the measurement problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

But if we are here to argue sensibly it seems at least reasonable to be called upon to state a clear position. My complaint about Wayfarer is that he cannot or will not do that. — Janus

Are you demanding a "clear position" expressed in Materialistic terminology? I can't speak for , but I suspect that he "cannot or will not do that", because it would completely miss the meaning of his Immaterialist*1 philosophical Position. Any "sensible" Material aspects of his worldview are covered by Science, not Philosophy. :smile:

*1. Immaterialism :
The term 'immaterialism' was introduced by George Berkeley in the third of his Three Dialogues (1713), to designate his own opinion that there was no such thing as material substance, and that bodies were not to be understood in terms of qualities that inhered in an independent, unthinking substratum, but rather as ...
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk › Immaterialism
Note --- This may not be how Way would characterize his views. So I show it here only as an example of an alternative worldview to Materialism, which could not be "clearly" & "sensibly" expressed in Materialist language.

No. It gathered a good bunch of people to drill into self-organising complexity in the broad sense. But then over-generalised that dynamicist viewat the expense of the further thing which biosemiotics is focused on. Dynamics regulated by information. — apokrisis

I don't follow Santa Fe Institute in general, because my interest is primarily in their work on "dynamics regulated by Information" as you put it. Here's two books by authors & editors, some affiliated with SFI, that approach Complexity and Self-Organization from an Information perspective. :smile:


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.
by Sara Imari Walker, et al (Editor) SFI
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics To Metaphysics :
Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance. Why? In this book, eminent scientists, philosophers and theologians chart various aspects of information, from quantum information to biological and digital information, in order to understand how nature works.
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Nature-Reality-Metaphysics-Classics/dp/1107684536
Note --- It has a chapter specifically about Semiology and Biosemiotics

Do you see some spooky implications of my Energy/Information/Mind hypothesis that you would not wish for? — Gnomon
It presents Energy/Information/Mind, three quite distinct concepts, in a vague and inadequate way. — Banno

One of the most common replies on this forum is : "I don't understand what you are saying". Yet sometimes not phrased so politely. I've seen such responses to your own posts. But that's OK. If you will note specific instances of vagueness & inadequacy, I will attempt to clarify them. I have the time, if you have the interest.

Are you not able to grok my abreviated 2 or3 paragraph posts on this forum? Or my 30-page Thesis on the net? Or my multiple Blog posts on specific topics? Admittedly, it's difficult for someone to make sense of an unfamiliar, even unorthodox, concept. My posts typically include links to scientific articles that discuss relevant topics in more focused & precise ways, and in technical scientific terminology, instead of arcane philosophical language. Besides, I have no formal training in abstruse linguistic philosophy, so my writing style may be too mundane for you :smile:

Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or by empathy or profoundly.

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation. . . . . . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

To my eye your account of energy is wishful thinking.
It certainly is not accepted physics. — Banno

My "account" is not Physics, not "wishful thinking", it's speculative Philosophy ; on a Philosophy forum, not a Physics forum. Do you see some spooky implications of my Energy/Information/Mind hypothesis that you would not wish for? Einstein didn't like some of the spooky Quantum physics that resulted from his own not-yet-proven speculations, inferred from abstract mathematics.

Even all-knowing Physics must begin with speculations & conjectures & hypotheses in the absence of hard evidence. Einstein was a Theoretical Physicist with no laboratory experience. Was he doing physics or philosophy? Were his relativity speculations, and E=MC^2, "accepted physics" in 1905? Maybe other, more insightful, "eyes" will be able to see the relationship between Information & Energy & Mind : EnFormAction. :smile:


Is it true that Albert Einstein never did any experiments? :
Albert Einstein was a Theoretical physicist, not an Experimental Physicist. The interactions of matter and energy are studied by all physicists. Experimental physicists test ideas about how these interactions take place at the atomic level and their work has applications to medicine and nuclear technologies.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Albert-Einstein-never-did-any-experiments

Many Scientists Studied Relativity Before Einstein :
There were a bunch of relativity principles before Einstein: Galileo had one, Newton had a slightly different one. Even Aristotle and Descartes had claims that can be taken as similar principles. I find their respective theories of mechanics almost incomprehensible, so am going to ignore them in what follows.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/03/many-scientists-studied-relativity-before-einstein-so-why-does-he-get-the-credit/

Is much of theoretical physics nothing more than speculative assumptions? :
Religion, spirituality, and other “pseudoscientific” theories are constantly seen as backwards and lacking of evidence. But if a lack of evidence before believing in something is considered irrational, why is so much of physics that is based on literally zero testable evidence taken seriously?
There is no direct evidence of a multiverse, certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, string theory, and many other things. Why are so many of these kinds of theories taken seriously?
There have been entire books written about some of these theories with people being fascinated about how intellectual they seemingly sound despite the fact that there is zero experimental evidence for any of these theories.
Should they be given the same treatment as other forms of pseudoscience?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/100676/is-much-of-theoretical-physics-nothing-more-than-speculative-assumptions

So this becomes another overheated exercise in the Santa Fe tradition where self organising dynamics or topological order are meant to explain everything, and yet they can’t actually explain the key thing of how a molecule becomes a message and so how life and mind arise within the merely physical world.
For astrobiology perhaps especially, this is an amateur hour mistake. — apokrisis

You continue to post snarky put-downs, without any relevant reasons. Do you think the Santa Fe Institute is a bunch of amateurs?

Maybe even astrobiologists have to take baby steps. The specific stages & causes in the evolution of Matter-to-Life-to-Mind are still far from being worked-out by terrestrial biologists. Do you know of anyone who can explain "the key thing" underlying the emergence of Life from Matter and Mind from Life? I have a theory, but I'm not a Biologist, and have no credentials, which makes me an amateur. :smile:


New Concepts of Matter, Life and Mind :
In the ongoing co-evolution of matter with the vacuum's zero-point field, life emerges out of nonlife, and mind and consciousness emerge out of the higher domains of life. This evolutionary concept does not 'reduce' reality either to non-living matter (as materialism), or assimilate it to a nonmaterial mind (as idealism).
https://www.physlink.com/education/essay_laszlo.cfm
Note --- Ervin Laszlo is author of The Systems View of the World

Founded in 1984, the Santa Fe Institute was the first research institute dedicated to the study of complex adaptive systems. We are operated as an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) research and education center.
History. The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by scientists George Cowan, David Pines, Stirling Colgate, Murray Gell-Mann, Nick Metropolis, Herb Anderson, Peter A. Carruthers, and Richard Slansky. All but Pines and Gell-Mann were scientists with Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Just trying to work out what your claim is. So we have something like that the universe that, as it slides inevitably towards thermodynamic equilibrium, progresses towards increasing complexity & creative novelty eventually led from a hypothetical Singularity Soup (quark/gluon plasma) to the emergence of complex brains & minds?
It remains that the universe is fair and just only if those "complex brains & minds" make it so - is that right? — Banno

The title of this thread is not a "claim", but a question. In the OP, I did make one positive statement : "Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects". You claimed that the universe "slides inevitably toward thermodynamic equilibrium". If so, how do you explain the historical fact that the metaphorical Big Bang didn't immediately or inevitably evaporate in a puff of entropic smoke? Why, after 14 billion sol-years of wasted energy, due to disorganizing Entropy, is the "explosion" not only still expanding, but even accelerating, and creating a plethora of novel physical configurations, along with animated organisms, and a few metaphysical (mental) forms of cosmic stuff? How has the world evaded "inevitable" heat death for so long?

Astronomers, who traced the current state of affairs back to a pinpoint in the remote past, concluded that the Singularity began in a size smaller than an atom, and hotter & denser than any star. If so, how could inevitable heat-wasting Entropy produce anything more complex than a cold dark cinder? My philosophical hypothesis --- not a scientific claim --- is in agreement with anthropologist Henri Bergson's notion of Creative Evolution*1, in which he speculated that some then-unknown causal agency or principle, working counter to that of Entropy, is the explanation for the manifold exceptions to Thermodynamic Doom that we observe right here on the Blue Planet. In 400BC, Plato postulated an organizing force in the world, labelled "Logos". The term "Negentropy" was coined by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 book What is Life? In 1926, biologist Jan Smuts, presciently coined the term "Holism" to describe that same anti-entropy trend in natural evolution. In 2008, Gnomon, not a scientist nor a genius, coined the terms EnFormAction and Enformy to encapsulate all of the above principles.

None of these scientists relied on religious revelation for their belief in "creative evolution". Instead, they merely applied logical inferences of cause & effect, to explain how isolated things & events could combine into the whole integrated system of morphogenesis*2 (form creation) we call Evolution. Likewise, my own personal philosophical worldview is not grounded on any religious faith, but on rational reasoning from scientific & philosophical evidences. Therefore, I can agree with your assertion that "complex brains & minds make it so". But not with the implication that thermodynamic deconstruction could produce, or even allow, such complexity & consciousness by a random network of cosmic accidents. Entropy is always destructive of order, except when it is morphed into Enformy*3.

Instead, I agree with those geniuses from previous generations that there is some constructive creative agency causing positive form-change in the world. And I point the finger at the aimless Causal Force we call Energy. But energy alone can be either constructive or destructive. So, I follow those predecessors to conclude that raw Energy is directed & guided by internal cohesion & interaction to behave in coordinating cooperating Holistic ways. You next question, I suppose is : is that agency a god? My answer is : I don't know, but I currently treat it as an ordinary force of Nature, similar to abstract formles Energy, except working counter to Entropy. :nerd:


*1a. Élan Vital is a term coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. ____Wikipedia
*1b. Bergson's thesis is that Darwinian and Lamarkian evolution are only half the story and that there is a creative urge inherent in life that defines the direction

*2. Morphogenesis is defined as the suite of underlying biological processes orchestrating the dynamic formation of macroscopic shapes in biological matter.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/morphogenesis

*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, meta-physical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Did your astrobiologists remember that classic as they restated what has been well known among those who study these things for so many years. — apokrisis

What difference does that make? Do you imagine that astrobiologists are ignorant of Negentropy? Why are you trying to put-down this "new law" with nit-picky irrelevant comments? Does it contradict your personal worldview in some way? Do you read into it some outrageous religious doctrine? Is there some particular sore-point that it aggravates? Spell it out. What "well known" wheel are they reinventing?

My interest in this "new" perspective on Evolution is because it fits neatly into to my personal Holistic philosophical worldview, which underlies all of my comments on this forum. Biologist Jan Smuts, in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution, foresaw this expansion of evolutionary principles from Biology to Mineralogy and everything else : "The whole-making, holistic tendency, or Holism, . . . . is seen at all stages of existence, and is by no means confined to the biological domain, to which science has hitherto restricted it".

I doubt that the Cornell scientists "remember that classic". But they may have been influenced by its gradual percolation into the philosophical culture of science over the intervening years. Holism is currently known in science & engineering as General Systems Theory. The "missing evolutionary law" they postulated is merely one small step in the direction of a universal holistic worldview. And my renaming of the inappropriate term Negentropy as "EnFormAction", and negative Entropy as positive "Enformy" is just another increment in that trend away from classical scientific Reductionism toward general philosophical Holism*1.

Smuts asserted that Holism "is the motive force behind Evolution". It's what Bergson, grasping for a metaphor, called elan vital*2. But that was mis-interpreted as a religious concept similar to the Holy Spirit. The philosophical worldview of reductive Scientism might understandably be opposed to the notion of Holism, in that it pictures Evolution as a positive trend in Nature, instead of a downhill tumble toward entropic Heat Death. FWIW, my worldview is more optimistic. What about yours? :smile:


*1. I can't get my head around Reductionism vs Holism :
Many articles present reductionism as the whole is the sum of its parts. Holism is presented as the antithesis, that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. . . .
According to wikipedia, an example of reductionism is that the solar system can be explained in terms of planets and the gravitational forces between them. What strikes me as contradictory, is that I would have thought that the gravitional forces constitute an interaction between parts, not a part in and of itself? Therefore, this example conveys to me that reductionism is the idea that the whole is the sum of its parts and the interaction between the parts?
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/vrgba7/i_cant_get_my_head_around_reductionism_vs_holism/
Note --- The "interaction" between parts is what I call EnFormAction.

*2. Élan Vital is a term coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. ____Wikipedia

Refresh my memory. What have you been telling me? — Gnomon
As I say, I am officially baffled about how you deal with information. — apokrisis

I apologize for my ignorance and leaky memory. As I've mentioned before, I had no formal training in Philosophy in college, and I only began to get some experience with argumentation since I retired, and began posting on this forum. So a large percentage of your posts goes over my head, especially the long complicated ones. You use technical terminology unfamiliar to me, and refer to authors & texts I've never read. So, in many cases I just skim the posts. As you probably do with mine.

Regarding the Information and Arrow of Time graphic, I don't remember posting it, but it seems to fit my general understanding of the Evolution of Information. Can you explain to me what you think I didn't understand about it?

My personal philosophical concept of Information Theory is a departure*1*2 from that of Shannon, who seemed to equate it with disorderly devolving Entropy. Instead, I view the area between the red & blue curves in the Entropy graph as Negentropy, which is what I call EnFormAction (power to enform). You won't find that term in any science or philosophy texts, because I made it up to serve my amateur thesis of Enformationism. So, unless you are motivated to look into that unorthodox thesis, you'll probably remain "baffled by how I deal with information". :smile:

*1. The Information Philosopher :
My explanation of the cosmic creation process shows how the expansion of the universe opened up new possibilities for different possible futures. My work is based on a suggestion by Arthur Stanley Eddington and my Harvard colleague David Layzer.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

*2. Paul Davies on Information :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7EjwUp5krY

FWIW, here's my own chart of the evolution of Information (EnFormAction) since the universe began :

Is the argument then that this complexity somehow implies (leads to, causes...) a fair and just universe? — Banno

No. Where did you get that idea? One implication of this New Law of Evolution is that its progression of increasing complexity & creative novelty eventually led from a hypothetical Singularity Soup (quark/gluon plasma) to the emergence of complex brains & minds capable of asking questions about Fairness & Justice, that we world-observers call Philosophy. :smile:

This doesn't seem like some profound new law about the world to me; they just seem to be proposing another way of describing evolution as always been understood, just in a different and I guess more general way. — Apustimelogist

So, you were underwhelmed by this revelation of Causal Information as the key to universal progressive & creative Evolution from almost nothing to everything? Apparently some scientists in related fields are more impressed. :nerd:


Scientists propose 'missing' law for the evolution of everything in the universe :
# This new law identifies "universal concepts of selection" that drive systems to evolve, whether they're living or not.
# The research team behind the law, which included philosophers, astrobiologists, a theoretical physicist, a mineralogist and a data scientist, have called it "the law of increasing functional information."
# The law applies to systems that form from numerous components — such as atoms, molecules and cells —which can be arranged and rearranged repeatedly and adopt multiple different configurations, according to the statement. The law also says these configurations are selected based on function, and only a few survive.
# Theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, professor emeritus of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the study is a "superb, bold, broad, and transformational article,"
https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evolution-of-everything-in-the-universe

Evolution, not just survival, but novelty & creativity :
# The third and most interesting function according to the researchers is ‘novelty’ — the tendency of evolving systems to explore new configurations that sometimes lead to startling new behaviors or characteristics, like photosynthesis
https://www.sci.news/physics/law-of-increasing-functional-information-12369.html

Philosophy :
Functionalism is a theory about the nature of mental states. According to functionalists, mental states are identified by what they do rather than by what they are made of. Functionalism is the most familiar or “received” view among philosophers of mind and cognitive science.
https://iep.utm.edu/functism/
Note --- Doing is causal, not material

No. I'm pointing out how the sociology of science operates. NASA wants to remain employed by the US taxpayer. — apokrisis

What does NASA playing politics/ecomomics have to do with a scientific theory developed by Cornell University scientists? Do you think they choose to only back ideas that might be popular with voters? Is AstroBiology a popular use of taxpayer investments? Show me the aliens! :joke:

Sorry Gnomon, I don't fathom how your brain works. What else have I been telling you for at least a decade? — apokrisis

Refresh my memory. What have you been telling me? Have you been saying something like : "while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder"*2. This notion is also in opposition to the presumptions of Materialism, which focuses on the Randomness & Chaos of the universe"? If so, please accept my belated welcome to the club. :grin:

One has to laugh. Astrobiology - NASA’s fund-raising publicity department - reinvents the wheel. A new law that no one ever thought of. — apokrisis

Ha! You got something against the science of Astrobiology*1? Do you think Carl Sagan was looking through his telescope for little green men? Do you think NASA is a public relations tool for some nefarious evil-genius who wants to dominate the world? Well granted, Donald Trump or Elon Musk may want to put his name on the next rocket to Mars. And, Skepticism of "new" ideas is a truth filter. But, Scoffing is a creativity suppressor.

Dr. Michael Wong is indeed an astrobiologist, but the team included scientists from other specialties.The NASA article was just one of dozens of positive reviews of this proposed law. Besides, the linked publication doesn't mention Astrobiology. And the appellation of "new law" was applied by other science news publications. What "wheel" do you think is being re-invented here? What old law explained how Mind Functions and Human Purposes could emerge from purely materialistic evolution?

One reason I mentioned this particular scientific theory --- in this way-off-topic thread --- is that the postulated anti-entropy arrow-of-time puts Evolution in a new light. For years, scientists were able to picture Darwinian evolution as meandering, aimless, and ultimately doomed to a pathetic meaningless Heat Death. But now we have reasons for a more optimistic perspective : "his idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder"*2. This notion is also in opposition to the presumptions of Materialism, which focuses on the Randomness & Chaos of the universe, instead of the Order & Organization that makes Science & Philosophy possible.

The other reason is that "renowned mineralogist" Robert Hazen refers to this second arrow of thermodynamics as “the law of increasing functional information”. Which dovetails into my own personal information-based worldview. Moreover, it expands Darwin's notion of biological evolution to include non-living aspects of the universe*3. Which may help to explain how the hypothetical quark-gluon Plasma of the Big Bang was able to develop into living & thinking lumps of matter, not by divine creation, but by natural processes. How could Mechanical Evolution produce creatures concerned about Fairness & Justice in the world? :nerd:


*1. Astrobiology is a scientific field within the life and environmental sciences that studies the origins, early evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe by investigating its deterministic conditions and contingent events. ___Wikipedia

*2. Is there a second arrow of time? New research says yes
At Big Think, we introduce you to the brightest minds and boldest ideas of our time, inviting viewers to explore new ways to work, live, and understand our ever-changing world.
"Big Think challenges common sense assumptions and gives people permission to think in new ways.”
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

*3. New Law :
The core of everything we've been thinking about, in terms of the missing law, is evolution. When I say the word "evolution," you immediately think of Darwin, but this idea of selection goes much, much beyond Darwin and life. It applies to the evolution of atoms. It applies to the evolution of minerals. It applies to the evolution of planets and atmospheres and oceans. Evolution, which we see as being an increase in diversity, of patterning, in complexity of systems through time.
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

https://www.sci.news/physics/law-of-increasing-functional-information-12369.html

https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evolution-of-everything-in-the-universe

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/22/evolution-complexity-law

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/law-of-nature-research-selection-evolution-function-fittest-cornell-carnegie

https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IngBEkg61_E
Three new laws of Nature, to account for complexity. Sabine is skeptical.

Is There a Second Arrow of Time?

You haven't and Wayfarer hasn't, said what that alternative form of idealism consists in. If it is only that the brain models a world, well I think that is uncontroversial. But to think that what is being modeled exists in its own right seems most plausible to me given all the evidence from our experience as it is given by everday life and by science.

If there are no mind-independent existents and if there is no collective mind to which we are all connected, then how would you explain the fact that we all perceive the same things, including at least some animals? I am yet to see even the beginnings of any such explanation coming from you or Wayfarer. — Janus

Has been explaining his alternative form of idealism on this forum, and in magazine articles, for years. But his Buddhist-based metaphors & analogies do not translate into the vocabulary of Materialism or Physicalism or Scientism. My own worldview has more to do with ancient Plato & Aristotle philosophies, and little with Buddhism, but we have arrived at similar worldviews, that focus more on intangible Ideas than on corporeal Matter. My influences were mostly in 20th & 21st century Science ; especially Quantum & Information & Complexity theories. So, instead of calling my worldview Idealism, I labeled it as Enformationism*1. But I suppose you could style it "scientifically informed Idealism".

A recent development in science has been the notion that inorganic & organic Evolution is lawful*2. It proposes "a second arrow of time" which is positive & constructive, and opposed to the second law of thermodynamics : Entropy*3. The team of scientists haven't settled on a name for this anti-entropy law, but an old ironic label --- since the arrow direction is positive & progressive --- was Negentropy. In my own Information-based thesis, I refer to that "law" of gradual emergent evolution --- from a simple beginning (Singularity) toward more complex forms (Cosmos) --- as a natural trend, and label it as Enformy*4.

The Cornell University team called their "new law" of Evolution : "the law of increasing functional information.". And one member of the team calls it "a second arrow of time", pointing in the opposite direction from devolving Entropy. He also "explains that evolution seems to not only incorporate time, but also function and purpose". That latter term is provocative, since it seems to imply a Purposer, a Motivator, an Intender, an Organizer, a Designer, a Cosmic Mind. All of which are anathema to those who view the world as directionless & meaningless and destined for Nothingness.

Throughout history, most cultures have referred to that First Cause & Prime Mover as a God or Mind of some kind. But Plato gave it the less anthro name of Logos*5. You can call it whatever makes sense to you. But it's getting harder to deny that the universe was born in a burst of Energy & Law, then evolved toward sapiential maturity, and shows no signs of devolving into icy Entropy anytime soon. The world is not now, and never has been Ideal, in the sense of perfection. But since its most important feature so far, to us idea-sharing philosophers, is the emergence of creatures with Concepts, perhaps unrealistic Idealism is not too far off the mark. But I prefer the unfamiliar term Enformationism, which has no history of philosophical politics to elicit incredulity and knee-jerk reactions. :smile:



*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe ; including ideas.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Several blog posts explain in what sense Information can be considered an Aristotelian Substance.

*2. Scientists propose 'missing' law for the evolution of everything in the universe :
The research team behind the law, which included philosophers, astrobiologists, a theoretical physicist, a mineralogist and a data scientist, have called it "the law of increasing functional information."
"This was a true collaboration between scientists and philosophers to address one of the most profound mysteries"
https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evolution-of-everything-in-the-universe
This idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder.
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

*3. Entropy :
Refers to a state of disorder, but the term literally means Transformation. But if the Big Bang was followed only by disorder, it would have quickly disappeared in a puff of smoke. Yet, instead, the world system has gradually increased in organization, until now some of its offspring have evolved rational minds that are capable of imagining what the world was like 14 billion years ago. Many thinkers have interpreted Entropy pessimistically, to predict an eventual "heat death" in another 14 billion years. Yet, here we are, looking up at the stars, and wondering how & why we got to this point, and where we go from here.

*4 Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*5. LOGOS :
A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

↪Gnomon
My criticism of the view that everything is mind is that we really have no idea what that could really mean. On the other hand, we know very well what it means to say that everything is material or physical, since we find ourselves in a material world, where everything, except abstract generalities, does seem to be physical. Abstract generalities can be said to only exist in their material instantiations, and we have no way of clearly conceiving and saying how they could exist in any other sense. — Janus

's article seems to agree with your assessment, that a superhuman eye-in-the-sky worldview would be materially meaningless, but insists that the abstract notion may be metaphorically*1 relevant and symbolically meaningful. Before the 20th century, humans had never seen the world beyond their local horizon. But, they could imagine a bird's-eye-view, as evidenced by some of their ancient maps of the known world. {image below}

Where Kastrup aspires to prove logically that a Cosmic Mind must exist in some meaningful sense, Way says "there is no need to introduce a literal ‘mind-at-large’ to maintain a coherent idealism" {my emphasis}. What he does posit, in the article, is that a philosophical "paradigm shift from scientific materialism to scientifically-informed idealism" is currently underway"*2. And that new paradigm would not say "Abstract generalities can be said to only exist in their material instantiations" {my emphasis}. Which only makes sense from a Materialist perspective.

So, Way presents an alternative form of Idealism, which doesn't require an actual sensable God-in-the-quad to maintain the physical world in the absence of a human observer. For instance, a "cognitive shift"*3 in the observer/imaginer can be personally meaningful, even without an "instantiation". General Concepts and Universal Principles have no material specimen, only logical structure. :smile:


*1. Metaphor is figurative, not physical :
My favorite: Metaphor is a poetically or rhetorically ambitious use of words, a figurative as opposed to literal use. It has attracted more philosophical interest and provoked more philosophical controversy than any of the other traditionally recognized figures of speech.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-favorite-philosophical-metaphor

*2. Excerpt from Is there a ‘mind at large’? :
Without the organising capability which consciousness brings to the universe, what exists is by definition unintelligible and unknowable. The mind brings an order to experience in light of which data is interpreted and integrated into meaningful information — this is an intrinsic aspect of the meaning of ‘being’. But the sense in which the universe exists apart from or outside that activity is by definition unknown, so there is no need to posit a ‘mind-at-large’ to account for it.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/mind-at-large-169bb5f0c3a7
Note --- Plato postulated a universal logical force (LOGOS) in the world, organizing it into the orderly lawful physical system of parts that analytical Science can make sense of.

*3. The Overview Effect :
The overview effect is a cognitive shift reported by some astronauts while viewing the Earth from space. Researchers have characterized the effect as "a state of awe with self-transcendent qualities, precipitated by a particularly striking visual stimulus". The most prominent common aspects of personally experiencing the Earth from space are appreciation and perception of beauty, unexpected and even overwhelming emotion, and an increased sense of connection to other people and the Earth as a whole. The effect can cause changes in the observer's self concept and value system, and can be transformative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect


WORLD AS SEEN FROM ABOVE THE LOCATION OF THE MEDIEVAL IMAGINER

Wayfarer claims he doesn't agree with Kastrup's "mind at large", which I would say is itself an incoherent idea, but he apparently cannot offer any coherent alternative. — Janus
I've addressed that, in Is there 'Mind at Large'?, which I think is coherent, even if Tom Storm says it needs more detail. (I'm planning further installments. And re-visiting it, I think perhaps rather than invoking the spooky 'mind at large', I would just use the term 'some mind' or 'any mind' or 'the observer'.) — Wayfarer

seems to frequently criticize posts on the basis of incoherence. Which could mean that various statements & assertions in the post don't add-up to the postulated conclusion, or that the critic is incapable of following the implicit logic of the discussion. I Googled "philosophy -- coherence"*1 and found the page linked below. It says that "coherence" may imply Justified Belief, or may prove that the conclusion is True. I doubt that you are claiming that "Mind at Large" is provably true, but only that it is a believable possibility. So, his criticism may be saying that he doesn't agree with your conclusion, or that you haven't presented a detailed logical "system" to support your conjecture of a Universal Consciousness.

Over the millennia there have been many "systems" (theories) of philosophical Cosmic Consciousness : PanPsychism, PanTheism, PanEnDeism, . . . . ; and Kastrup's systematic & detailed worldview of Analytical Idealism is a recent addition. So, the easiest way to present a "coherent" theory pointing to the existence of some kind of intrinsic Mind in the Universe would be to simply accept one of those time-proven systems from the past as a label for your personal view. But apparently, what you have in mind is not exactly in accordance --- difference in detail --- with any of those older schemes of belief.

I'm in the same seemingly rudderless boat. Consequently, I was forced to produce my own personal thesis leading to the conclusion that our evolving world does indeed have a rudder. But few posters on this forum are willing to invest the time to plow through the details, evidences & arguments. So, they prefer to use prejudicial labels to characterize an unfamiliar system-of-thought, that they don't understand, as incoherent or simply untrue.

I continue to add "details" to my own thesis, as do you, but I doubt that any amount of itemization will convince someone who is not already inclined toward your point of view. If the general notion is abhorrent to their worldview, more particulars will not sway them. Concur? :smile:


*1. Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification :
According to the coherence theory of justification, also known as coherentism, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes. The coherence theory of justification should be distinguished from the coherence theory of truth. The former is a theory of what it means for a belief or a set of beliefs to be justified, or for a subject to be justified in holding the belief or set of beliefs. The latter is a theory of what it means for a belief or proposition to be true.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

As for as Kastrup’s idealism - I do question the ‘mind at large’ idea in this essay - Is there ‘mind at large’? - — Wayfarer

In my last two posts on this thread, I responded to 's and 's challenges for you to state a firm either/or (cake or eat) position on the multi-faceted concept of Idealism. And one facet that you seem to waver on is the "mind at large" notion, which seems to imply some kind of God-mind ; although even Kastrup seems to be "of two minds" regarding the nature of that hypothetical entity.

In your Mind At Large article, you distinguished Scientific Materialism from Scientifically-Informed Idealism. And the latter phrase is close to my intention when I wrote the original Enformationism thesis. Yet invariably, posters on this forum insist that I take a stand for Scientific Materialism or for Philosophical Idealism. However, what I had in mind was more like your notion of "Scientifically-Informed Idealism" (SII).

Although your interpretation of SII may not be exactly the same as mine, I suspect that we both envision a middle-ground or transition between the poles of Mind and Matter. If so, then you and I are standing firmly on the bridge in between. For me, that Mind/Matter connection is Generic Information, as exemplified in physical causal Energy Fields, which Einstein linked to Matter in his E=MC^2 equation. Mathematical Mass is not the same thing as sensable Matter, but it's how our physical senses perceive Material objects in a gravitational field : resistance ; inertia.

If my guess is correct, then you and I are not vacillating between two poles, but stably standing in the middle ground, which some philosophers believe does not, cannot, exist. But we may still be unsure of the nature of the "mind at large" which serves as a Bridge Over Troubled Waters. For me, it's definitely not the God of Theology, but more like the Way-Path (organizing principle) of Taoism, or the Logos (rational principle) of Western Philosophy. Is my reckoning even close to your standpoint? :smile: