Long before Einstein, Hegel said that space and time combine to form motion. More specifically, he said that space plus time equals mass and it's motions. Although much addition thoughts has been added to this, he has a point in calling force "a category of reflection fixed by the understanding". If I feel heat from a portable heater, I know which direction the hottest is coming from. When my senses are not perceiving it, how do I know where the energy or force is then coming from? If you deprive us of our senses, no knowledge of the world is possible.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0211826&fbclid=IwAR1NDCirfOWY2lrB-YVwc8m-IMX9F-7RDmmriakA8xYWWbKud7TqOajsdhU

In birds this magnetism is said to arise from quantum mechanics. It is an assumption though that "bottom up" is more fundamental than "top down".

We don't even know which direction the arrow of time is going:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

So all in all “When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door” (Simone Weil) and we really don't know why science is no unreasonably effective

Note:

The best way to understand how I use the word "palpable" is to press on someone's skin and observe the manner in which it moves back into place. The best example I know

Let me make few addition remarks about what's on my mind then I'll get back to you.

1) Feser believes that objects are composed of both a quasi-spiritual "form" and a "prime matter" that is so purely potential that "God" didn't even create it properly speaking. I've talked to Feser. He doesn't really understand what matter is. Descartes tried to point all this out to Aristotelians but calling matter "extension" is not precise enough on the other hand

2) Einstein had a vague notion of a Spinozian God who had the absolute reference frame. Latter physicists dismiss this and say there is no absolute reference frame, but I wonder how they keep matter as matter in that case

3) putting information as the substrate of matter seems to misunderstand matter's palpability. But again, I will get back to you on that

Thanks, I'll keep studying. Do you have any specifically psychological studies on how speed affects perception?

On consciousness: I would agree with Buddhism that consciousness is nothing, but still hold that identity is meaningful (and this was Hume's position on the question btw). You seem to however tend towards seeing the world as Maya, which I don't believe. But I will continue to read your links so don't tire of me :)

Some writers on networks, complexity, system theory, and "universal Darwinism" are Kelly L. Ross, Stephen Wolfram, Mark Kleiman, and Jim Lindgren. I am interested in the philosophical underpinnings, and I also plan on reading Heidegger on the metaphysical foundation of logic itself. Lots to learn

So the "Creator" has no free will? That's Spinoza's opinion too

Positing information as having Being needs much elaboration. I will try to get to all these links you are putting out for us to read ( i have conversed with Feser for example). Hegel thought the world moved by dynamic syllogisms (logical dialectic). Instead science has adopted math as it's method. But, as with your theories, a strong mind-matter relationship has to be established philosophically. Why should numbers have anything to do with how objects move?

There was a famous paper written on the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math in the natural sciences. I as well don't understand how it works. It's possible science is Pythagorean alchemy

There are two things, matter and consciousness. As I see it consciousness is ultimately nothingness. It is just experience (experience from matter). Matter comes in different forms but it all has the same principle. Einstein said a lot about how people would view things in so in so situations but you need psychology, not just physics thought experiments, to validate all this

Thanks

From what I've gathered from videos in physics is there is massless mass and regular mass. Can the former be extended? Well light is so ye. It is wave-(massless particles). We see light as three dimensional yellow beams. The higgs boson with the higgs particle mediate between forms of massless mass to form regular mass, which has proper weight. Massless mass can put pressure on things, so a shadow on a wall in midday received less pressure than the sunlit sections. If you were a massless mass you wouldnt experience time (change) But gravity comes in and it becomes more confusing. How curvatory works with slowing light and the whole geodesic things i don't get

I don't think General Relativity stands without a good psychological and philosophical foundation, which thinkers like Hegel and Peirce might be able to provide. Common sense is not a clear set of rules,and let us take the example of a first look into a mirror. Would you instantly intuite that the reflection was an accurate one of you? Or would you have to have someone else look at your reflection and confirm it's accuracy? We can't abandon all our common sense or we get to the point where only numbers are being crunched and no understanding of what is going on is found. It's bad enough in the quantum world, but confusion about the classical world is real too

I got through half of the IEP article on Peirce's logic. I didn't get anything out of it. Any resources?

How I see Nietzsche, he held Western religion as self-congratulatory since it obsessed with the alleged rational aside of ethics.instead.of with doing, acting, creating.

My summary of Nietszche's proof that the traditionalist theist God is non-existent goes like this:

God can be seen in 3 parts. His essense, his free will, and his necessary will to love his nature. Now moral goodness doesn t flow from essense. A baby is good but its not the same thing as Aristotle's virtuous person. So set essence aside. To love freely and necessarily without the human compatibility scheme seems impossibls, but let's grant a mystery and say God loves both ways and can't sin but is free at the same time. Now this free but bound will of God is always happy. He doesn't face struggle then finds happiness. His act.of existing is blissful.

There we have:

1) an infinite deity that loves infinitely but does so with bliss and necessity

2)Nietzsche posits the human animal as that which earns its way in life

It's easy to see the divinity as below the rational animal which is human. Since he is said to create and have provenance over us, he can't possibly exist

There is no reference phrame because everything is moving even space and space's space. Does motions objects mean the same thing as the energy-information union?

I meant to say Einstein said the fold theory thing. Objects firmly have properties was not given up by Einstein. How he spoke of time is confusing but momentum caused by the causality of mass against space is the motor in GR

Weight is unambiguous for Einstein because it's identical to causality. Again, Decartes was the one who said weight was not a meaningful concept. Pressure on extension was his causality. HE says weight cause folds I space is why we move

I see a flaw here perhaps. General relativity shows clocks slow down, not time. As Sean Carrol admitted "we don't even know what time is." If there were a jinn watching our universe from outside, it would only see objects moving faster or slower. Einstein ideas of our psychological reaction to relativity is good but needs to be expored by clinical psycjologists.

Now, in relativity things don't move magnet- like by gravity by by the fact that things are naturally heavy. Such a property as heaviness seems inconsistent with information theory and without it the engine is gone from the GR machine

As Hume would say, how do we know mass warps space-time? That is, we can never know which direction causality is going. Using common sense is important in keeping the idea of causality alive, but as many say in the physics world "give up your intuitions!" Descartes rejected the fantasies of scholastic schoolmen rightly, and set up the most fundamental mechanistic philosophy devised. The only source of motion of everything physical ( extended) was the principle that causes a spring to "spring back" when released. This reductionist idea was rational and did away with more esoteric ideas in science. I feel like maybe the idea of reality as energy+information is vague and doesn't explain well what being is. I've done all kinds of psychedelics and experienced ideas as real as this world, and even seen this world disappear before my eyes. But in my normal state material bodies are very palpable. A lot of modern physics is getting away from this idea, despite that fact that Descartes helped start the movement. So in combining Descartes idea of extension and pressure, we have a consistent theory of the universe as long as we reject absolute time. Exactly where the flows of force are moving is up to our feelings of touch and sound

Nietzsche appreciated how we are animals who, like others, use our muscles and wits constantly. He admired this effort and thought that spiritual at the level of the divine is not effort at all and so is inferior. If divine activity lacks effort and we disqualify goodness as possessed "stuff", then what is left of the godhead? Life is hard and "there is no easy way to be free", unless of course you're the deity at the top. I along with Nietzsche find the concept of God empty and not in the way Buddhists use that word

I'm think we 're getting somewhere but maybe words can't express it (Wittgenstein). Music for me is the powerful, highest form of art, and different religious traditions' religious music expressed much to us. I've listened to Daoist chants and they have an impersonal feel but one that is not turned inward like Buddhist chants. Gregorian chants reflect a specific aesthetic and is interesting compared to the more sensuous Islamic techniques. Sitar music is my favorite religious art form, well I should clarify in only listen to Ravi Shankar and his daughters music. It has the most authenticity. (Wikipedia in the article "criticisms of Christianity lists a number of Hindu philosophers who wrote against the static thinking of Christian Westerners). "Life flows on within and you without you" bridges Daoist and Buddhist traditions in this respect. FInally, there are the chants found on YouTube by the Bulgarian church. They kind of look satanic in the photos and there music instead strangely generic to my ears. But it is all subjective on the bottom line and who knows, maybe a genuine form of satanic Christianity is theological possible

Thank you for your reply. I was thinking about art and aesthetics last night. What is the connection between art and religious belief? Mormon, JW, and most Protestant art that is not influenced indirectly by Catholicism is rather modern. Catholicism, for its part, traditionally had a much more ornate sense of style and I am wondering if this is related its dogmas (her belief that outward actions bestow grace as effective operation)

If the Catholic Church destroyed all its art and put an image of an eight armed, blue skinned guy forward as it's image of God, saying "we keep all our dogmas but past art did not represent it. This new image comes much closer to revealing God through art", would it be the same religion?did

That's interesting

Objective and Subjective are small ideas that one can move beyond through understanding categories of thought, relativity, and in other ways. Finding connections within the universe is still a contained activity. To move beyond to essences is to think your ideas are special

.

I don't believe that Christianity has ever given anyone true strength because the latter is not about ideas. Talking about love and forgiveness doesn't mean anything past a point

According to the edition of the Britannica Encyclopedia I have, Descartes held that gravity was not magnetic but was instead second matter squeezing out "globulars" (spherical particles) like cannon balls towards the earth and somehow this was coordinated in a circular way by a universal "vortex". This squeezing squishy action makes sense to me when talking about cosmology for some reason.

Which ideas of common sense we need to retain and which we need to discard is a huge question however.

I guess i have a concluding thought. Just observations :)

I have my question now:

Is esotericism clearly and distinctly distinguished from exotericism?

I'm considering words like thaumaturgy, theurgy, grimoires. If used in place of traditional words (e.g. if we SAY the ceremony of the Last Supper was a spell), does the line become blurry?

I've heard that the esoteric is about control while exoteric behavior is not. But many formal Chrstians are rather controlling and doesn't casting a spell usually require a lot of faith?

If someone says "there is literally a person who exists, well really three persons, who don't have bodies but who are (based on the use of the word Father by Jesus's human side) the real and true father of humanity "..well putting it that way sounds esoteric!

I guess one of the cruxes of this topic\subject is whether it's natural to love alleged beings who are non-human and not embodied. Is love them really just consciousness altering? FInally, what is the difference between a fairy and an angel?

"Intelligence is recognitive: it cognises an intuition, but only because that intuition is already its own." Hegel



Your ideas are very interesting!! Descartes's gel -like "second matter" is analogous to Newton's quintessence, although the former is a physicality understanding. The mind over matter (or matter over mind) question in philosophy is very related to this subject

The bothand blog is yours? I'm definitely into this stuff. Today I was considering how the near infinite attraction of gravity, near zero mass, the near zero randomness, and near perfect curvature of the primal Singularity was able to expand because the infinity was only "near" perfect. The lack of perfect control allowed randomness to escape order and thus rush into the creating of galaxies.

Similar to you, I am no longer Catholic, but my main focus in life aside from family is working on these questions. A lot of people say Aristotle understood the First Cause only as subsumed by the Final Cause which moves the universe towards It by being in the infinite future. This makes sense from Aristotle's Physics (the only work by him I've read I'll admit) in which he says the world is most likely eternal. Aquinas came along and downplayed Aristotle's arguments for an eternal universe and put the Prime Mover squarely on both sides of time (past and future, first and final). So their views of time were a a little different. At least, that is what I think. Aquinas had God more as First and Aristotle had God more Final

Subjective idealism? I've always thought this meant the world is illusion. Now I see that I need to move subjective idealism into my objective idealism category and move objective idealism too. well somewhere.

This has been illuminating

I don't see how someone can have sex without believing in the reality of matter. What exactly matter is was essentially first proposed by Heidegger in the phrase "what is there-being?" so there is something perhaps we can't fully understand but if someone is hit by a projected table he can't in that moment deny that material existence is real. It IS easy to deny when one is reading. You listed 5 causes ( adding first causality, which wasn't Aristotle's) but I can't see how in your thesis there can be a difference between formal, material, and energetic causality.

I don't know if the high level technology we used in particle physics really can say what things are in themselves. We see a lot of Aristotelian language in quantum physics like when the scientists say we find more "probable potential" at low ranges than we do at the classical level. It is most probably impossible for us to separate science and philosophy because our brains are wired to think in terms of both. Kant was so extreme that he thought space and time themselves were in us and that objects were in us in the sense that they are in the internal intuitions of space and time it. Hegel, influenced by Kant, expounded on how we cognize those objects in intuition and tried the enormous task of connecting us back to things as they are

"Elementorum philosophiae sectio prima De corpore" is the 1655 work by Hobbes that deals with mechanistic philosophy. I just realized that this came after Descartes's death (1650)

Of interest:
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Hobbes/hobbes_mechanism.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708775?seq=1

Is your "formal cause" in the mind (Kant) or somehow simultaneously in the mind AND in matter (Hegel)? I think this is pertinent to your position since I can't see how information can exist when no minds are around. Modern philosophy took the "formal" and put it in consciousness ( maybe where it belongs). Modern thought essentially started when' people like Galileo said that most of what the Middle Ages assigned to physical reality was really just the workings of human minds (although some medieval mystics said as much and posited God as being "prime matter")

Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes were first among well known scholars to first strongly emphasis using mathematics to understand physics (aside from the Pythagorian school). At least that is what I've gathered from reading history. The world is more than mathematical though so we have to add concepts to the workings of numbers in order to do physics. The manner in which the motion of an eternal universe is structured determines if it makes reasonable sense standing on its own (without adding infinite premises). Am I wrong in thinking that an infinite series can only exist in the world only by being an eternal moving present? I think the series can only be infinite in that it extends into the past (always was). Descartes's vortex was the first series attempt to understand this, if my reading of history is correct (although Hobbes wrote on physics. I don't know anything about his particular arguments)

I'm a little confused so perhaps you should "carry on" for a moment for me. I see an infinite series as

1) mathematical and ordered according to as we understand and imagine it

Or

2) physical series of moments or vibrations

Does 1 make sense on its own, or 2, or both? As I see it, 2 is just 1 with the addition of physical force

It's ok. I drink energy drinks and like to listen to classic rock sometimes when I'm reading philosophy books.

Could aether inherently use wormholes? Newtonian space and time are purely incorporeal, while aether as quintessence is neither actual not potential but some type of emanation, a fluid that has aspects of material and immaterial ( "simple") existence. Bell's inequalities are explained by only saying that time works differently than we thought at the quantum level. But using wormholes in a fluid might be a better way to answer the dilemma. It would coordinate our understanding of time as a conscious species of animals

There are ways to correlate time experience between observers so there must be something overarching and connecting pieces of time. May this something is space, idn. Bertrand Russell thought modern mathematics indicated what came to be called B time. Einstein thought relativity indicated what came to be called B time. In B time the numeral for time is 0.

Ye if we have an infinite series of vibrations (of fire!) stretching into the past with no end, then the future is different from the past because the past is completed infinity. Every vibration is "in the middle" so to speak (intermediate) but the whole series is complete because of the logos (laws) that are directing it

I may have used Berkeley's statement too broadly. Sometimes I generalize too quickly. Thanks for your explanation however. The world truly is not pure geometry, and this actually may be why we can't understand the world completely. If we have Cartesian extension on one side and absolute nothingness on the other, gravitational potential energy would be at the center. The way numbers move in the mind is analogous to how objects move in space, as Kant implied. In the dispute between Berkeley and Newton, numbers are not being added up one at a time though. And there is still an infinity in the equation which I took to be Berkeley's real problem with Newton's calculus. Berkeley was an idealist and people who denied the reality of the world had traditional used Zeno's paradoxes to "prove" their point. The question of whether "many is always many" or whether a multitude can be subsumed into something else is of interest I think. As an equation reaches zero, do we in the next step have infinity as a negative zero? I think that might be a Liebnizian monad, but idnk, I have to read an actual work by Leibniz sometime (it will be my first). Anyway, if someone mentally scales his mind down to a point, perhaps he will here the words of Sartre: " … the total disappearance of being would not be the advent of the reign of non-being, but on the contrary the concomitant disappearance of nothingness."

Maybe my concept of "finite" doesn't correspond to anything but it seems to me it merely says "The finite means that which has beginning and end". That mathematicians don't scratch their heads at the idea of a geometric object having infinite parts but also having a beginning and end, well that makes me scratch my head lol