If you oppose logic to "speculative" belief, it only demonstrates that you do not understand the axiomatic nature of the system of logic. Furthermore, there are no systems, i.e. theories, that do not ultimately rest on "speculative" beliefs. That is simply impossible. — alcontali

This is true only if we decide to leave out objective reality in our logic. If you base logic on what really is/occurs around you, than it is 'speculative' only to the extent you don't trust your senses and their interpretation. These are not axioms, rather basic truths of life that everyone agrees with. This solves your problem. Reason and logic must be grounded in this reality to avoid the speculative catastrophe. That is, all transcendental 'knowledge' are such implanted conclusions from axiomatic logic, and has the same problem, since the God reality is a projection of our logical constructs; whereas revelation is altogether unprovable and impossible to rationally discuss. We have to take it on blind trust. So why bother with our unprovable visions and communications, with the transcendental reflection of our logic, when we have all this in ourselves, and being honest with ourselves, accept our inner faculties in an undistorted form. There are theories that our eyes and ears are 'speculative' too, but this belief leads to extreme hallucinatory solipsism.

A central belief in Islam is that politicians, elected or not, have no authority to invent new laws because God has invented all the laws already. This makes such continuous freedom-encroachment process impossible. — alcontali

I'm not educated enough on Islam and Islamic law to discuss the question, but I don't really see the connection between Islamic morality and libertarianism, because I think that it is a rather strict system, which allows very little for freedom. For instance, what does Islam say about religious freedom, and by its norms, am I allowed to choose my creed, or not to believe in God at all. If Islam doesn't allow this, it has little relevance in libertarianism.

Another problem is that there could be distinguished God as the source of moral law and human reason as the source moral law. The first is very speculative, therefore easily refuted using strict logic and empirical facts, while human reason is the only trustworthy place of insights into the human nature and the needs of society, for it to prosper. The religious argument is too extreme and it is not sincere, because it includes unproved facts and lies, to be honest. And this is a huge detriment.

Unless there's something like 'liberal Islam', which I doubt.

I am very wary and also suspicious of the refusal to commit to an immutable set of documentation. That practice allows people to claim a thing and tomorrow the very opposite of that thing. So, no, I am very opposed to that. — alcontali

We have written laws, law enforcement, we have education - this is sufficient. If someone needs a more restricted code of behavior, they can have written codes of ethics in their organization. Ethics is inseparable from free will, it cannot be forced like criminal law if it is based on some tradition, belief system etc. I make a distinction between an immoral and criminal behavior.

What these false ideologies all have in common, is that they are not documented in a firmly established system of rules, i.e. a sound theory. That is why these things are mere bullshit. — alcontali

If a system is not written, it is difficult to discuss it, contradict or agree. But many of them are bookshit, nothing more. Hitler, for instance had "Mein Kampf", where he explained his views on aryan morality. Here he showed evident flaws in his rationality, however, this didn't prevent him to become popular.

Some old moral systems, especially the religious ones are to be reformed, because we live in a different world than thousands of years ago. Progress deniers use arguments that are out of time.

The term "common-sense morality" creates the impression of referring to something rather undocumented. — alcontali

I believe there's the following gradation of moral sense in men. Morality inherent in human nature (not in everyone), natural law, morality of reason, theories (philosophy, ethics), institutionalized secular law, Church law, God's law. As libertarians usually are very distrustful of big organizations, like the State, the Church, they tend to rely on common sense, libertarian philosophy, natural law and to a lesser extent institutionalized law in libertarian communities. Everyone, guided by the main libertarian framework, can document their moral principles themselves. The duty to document their moral standards falls on every community separately, with the political libertarian guidance.

Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? The 1905 Russell's paradox has a long history, but I have rarely run into anybody who actually feels like learning from it. That represents 100+ years of progress in dealing with paradoxes thrown out of the window ... — alcontali

The lower sets have no choice in this logical paradox, only the extreme one has a choice to 'double' itself. That is to be inside itself or outside itself. So only one set would be really free.

So, according to you a functioning system of rules is not needed because that would be "too restrictive"? What about systems of arithmetic, such as Dedekind-Peano, Robinson, Presburger, or Skolem's systems? Are their rules also "too restrictive"? These systems may be considered relatively "hard" but that is a feature, and not a bug. — alcontali

I have nothing against rules and procedures in general if they are useful, I'm against irrational choke-rules that are concocted in perverted ideologies. We have totalitarianism, communism, fascism, statism, eugenics, social Darwinism, elitism that have all sorts of ethics rules that serve only the needs of narrow groups and do nothing good to humanity.

Systems tend to be indeed difficult to learn, but I learn them anyway. I have always handsomely benefited from that view. — alcontali

My take is that good things are to be learned, stupid - dematerialized.

Maybe it's a language issue. — Terrapin Station

It's a 10% language issue, and 90% ideology issue, roughly. So, never mind.

Some right-libertarians consider the non-aggression principle to be a core part of their beliefs. — alcontali

In my opinion, the principle of non-aggression is rather sufficient, even though to some it might seem empty and lack content. In other words, it forbids trespassing without consent. If it was just consent it would not be enough, and the principle of setting limits to action is a broad and acceptable regulatory principle. If we would like to infuse some substance into the principle of non-aggression, the main pillars are obvious: the respect of life, liberty, property and dignity. These notions are also present in libertarianism and are implied in the requirement of non-aggression, because they are the 'objects' of usual immoral trespassing.

There's no necessity to fall back on anything, because libertarians use common sense morality, not based on any metaphysical doctrine. This would be the empirical part. The question why, and what happens if you show aggression, requires metaphysics, or doesn't if there's no why and nothing happens beyond the legal punishment. You don't burn in hell, your soul doesn't perish etc.

Still, choosing not to be, has consequences. — alcontali

It is an interesting question, because it's not clear if moral principles apply to God him/her/itself. Can God be immoral, if he does, why doesn't he choose to be immoral. How do we know if God should value our life, freedom, property and dignity as objects that make the core of human existence. If I am God's slave, God is immoral.

However, I still recognize that libertarianism is not a complete moral system. It is not the complete answer. — alcontali

I think that libertarian ethics are optimal for modern times, because other systems just add other unnecessary objects of transgression and forbidden types of action that are too restrictive to have a comfortable, yet pacifist life. This implies that there's only empirical obvious harm, which is forbidden and no eternal harm to soul. Bad actions are not wanted because of social utilitarianism in such a case.

Again huh? That doesn't seem "simply put." It seems like pretty gobbledygooky with a bunch of assumptions (including re just what I'm claiming) that aren't justifiable. — Terrapin Station

This time put squarely, I can tell you what's really gobbledygooky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics

A pretty load, huh?

Can you justify that? Or somebody told you? I know there's 'probability'...

I don't even buy that there can be energy "on its own," by the way. Energy obtains via the relative motion of physical objects.
(And as another "warning," most "information" talk strikes me as a bunch of gobbledygook.) — Terrapin Station

I don't claim that there's energy on its own, energy is a state of matter - kinetic and potential, which materializes in motion. Information is also much more than 'gobbledygook', it also is a state of matter, like transfer of form through space, processing of morphisms, their representation etc.
Will is a state of mental matter, which is made of information processing, decision and physical action. I don't consider it serious to claim that the speculative subatomic/atomic/molecular theory of matter is sufficient and exhaustive. It is rather lacking in many respects, as it doesn't explain many phenomena fully and satisfactorily, like consciousness, mind, genetic processes, qualities of perception.
If we assume that qualities are more fundamental than quantities, all quantitative science is rubbish. This would imply that the path mathematics+physics and everything they derive is wrong, as it distorts the true nature of our reality. Freedom is more correctly understood through empirical observation, and some sort of metaphysical/religious interpretation, which implants entities rather than numbers into the concept of matter. Matter as a swarm of bits and units is unrealistic, this view is not productive discussing free will and freedom. The concept of probability doesn't help here a bit.

The point of the subject was to relate the question of freedom, free will to the problem of political order. Libertarianism should assume the narrower, reductionist understanding or the broader, 'metaphysical' one? Which is more appropriate in our days? Or is it just an illusory, impossible ideology?

@NOS4A2
I reject any kind of coercion - science and atheists also use it. Isn't the ideology of absolute truth a coercion? For instance, many scientists believe that they are 100% truth.

@Terrapin Station
This reductionist view is rather weak for my liking. There are lots of arguments, but simply put the structure is 1(entire reality 2(our knowledge, constructs and suppositions)). For 1 - it is my 'meta', for 2 - your reductionist materialism. If 1 and 2 is 100%, 1 would make 70% and 2 would make 30%. Our scientific 30% is a load of delusions and wrong speculations, despite that they may be effective. While the first part, the unknown hides all the answers to the mystery of reality, of which science understands nothing.

(And as another "warning," most "information" talk strikes me as a bunch of gobbledygook.) — Terrapin Station

In that case, what is your opinion from your point of view. What is free will, if we have one. Is it important? Do libertarians talk nonsense, especially, the 'metaphysical/religious' ones? What are we?

Here's a recent post of mine explaining the standard academic philosophical definition of metaphysics, by the way: — Terrapin Station

So where, in your opinion, these first principles reside? Has being or existence layers that are beyond physics? Doesn't theology discuss things that ar 'supernatural' in a mystical/mysterious way? My question about freedom asks about its first principles, its existence and its relation to God in a theological manner. This is metaphysics of freedom, as opposed to the empirical one, which is related to violence, control and surveillance in modern society.

So what does it mean to say that we can "transfer" something like the freedom issue to "the metaphysical level," and what would metaphysical causality be (in other words, what would a specific example of it be)? — Terrapin Station

Simply put, there are two general types of causality - energy shifts and will. Energy can have a simple form or a complex structure processing information and computing. The shifts in energy manifest in forces that act on one another. The other case is will, which is a psychological construct which may have some underlying energy structure. So beyond the empirical reality we have unseen forces that have not only a simple form, but also a more complex one. Especially, if there are living entities that are some sort of transcendental wills. So we may have unseen circumstances around us like a multivector of forces of energy and unseen willing subjects like in religion God, gods, demons, spirits, souls etc. if we believe in them. We are parts of the whole and the question is what's the relation between them, determined, free or mixed.

The universe is only semi-deterministic as there is so much contingency everywhere. Ayer pointed out that an obstacle to free will is constraint, not "determinism". — Fine Doubter

Freedom, I think, is an inherent property of consciousness that could be defined as a relation between an area and a line drawn through it. Our consciousness is information transformed into a surface or a picture, representing reality. Our body moves in it as a line. Freedom is the ability to choose a trajectory in the area, which is based on our will. The area could be not only space, but also possibilities, an abundance of which makes us choose one or two, however we cannot choose everything at once. Therefore, here too we have a certain trajectory of choices in our life. This is freedom if we are not made or forced to choose certain trajectories. However, choices are influenced not only by external empirical factors, but also by internal, metaphysical ones. Firstly, because choices are constructs of our deep brain. Thus a question arises if they can be considered 'free'.

I don't understand how you're using the terms "metaphysical" and "empirical." It doesn't seem to resemble how I use those terms or what I'd say conventional usage is in an academic context. — Terrapin Station

My usage should be obvious - there is a physical world and a metaphysical one. The physical world is sensory, or empirical, whereas metaphysical is supersensory. Philosophers argue what these two realities are, but, in a broad understanding, empirical is what we see, hear and feel and metaphysical is the unseen. Causes may be empirical that is seen, heard and felt and metaphysical arising from deeper layers of reality. These deeper layers are soul, God, entities etc. So free will can be fettered by obvious empirical causes and there could be invisible shackles. Therefore if we, for instance, believe that we empirically are not constrained, we may be not free in a deeper sense. The discussion would be, if this deeper understanding of freedom is important to libertarianism. Or should we be satisfied by illusion.

What I believe is just a provisional theory or idea. It is not a religious faith, rather an intellectual curiosity. My intellectual template is an opposition between two types of continuum, mind is able to construct. The first continuum is composed of units, as in a fractal of (111111111) and the other of infinities as in a fractal of (∞∞∞∞∞∞). We can shape limited forms in the unitary continuum, as in science and in 'infinitary', where it would represent 'Chaos' taking shape or shaped by mind. However, mind can only make projections from unitary static/dynamic continuum to the infinitary. I fully understand that this is just a mental exercise, not the transcendence itself. The success is measured only by effectiveness. There is no God in (11111111), but there must be in (∞∞∞∞∞∞), God as everything. And the reality is (∞∞∞∞∞∞(111111111)∞∞∞∞∞∞).

Dragon=chaos before creation, and presumably involved in any eschaton unravelling. — Anthony

Wouldn't agree that chaos is smth 'before' smth else. Chaos is not passive as some kind of unformed material. God is not beyond it. God = Chaos, it produces reality. However not as vacuum, but rather as plenum. Religion and mythology misinterpret this realm and the process of creation. I believe that reality self-creates without an external creator.

Mind/body distinction is too old fashioned, because the situation is more complicated than we perceive. I distinguish between the conscious picture of reality that resides in our heads and has all parts as representations and the unconscious real state of things beyond representation, but functioning as the source of it. Consciousness has the world as a representation, the body as a representation, the mind as a representation and feeling as a representation. Unconsciousness has the world as a reality, the body as a reality, the mind as a reality and feeling as a reality. So everything inside conscious world has its double and is 'dualistic', representation and its real source. So we have only a distant idea of what we really are beyond our perception. Our bodies are only body-pictures and minds are only mind-pictures (representations).

The meaning of this symbol is multifaceted and allusion to time is just one of them. To me it indicates time, space, matter, consciousness and so on. We can interpret Ouroboros as we need. In this case, it refers to the structure of soul. The head means spirit and the tail is matter, two main parts of man - spirit-body. The nexus of this symbol is inner-space we exist in. The circle is life cycle and the foundation of reality. Dragon is transcendence, the Creator.

Science could destroy humanity in many ways: moral decadence, power combined with stupidity and Ego, a technological disaster, profiteering, war, technofascism, pretence to control the uncontrolable.

The most important in these are in economy - profiteering, in science - a cataclysmic disaster, in politics - war, technofascism, in society - moral decadence.

The positive side of technological progress would be consumption, abundance, a more comfortable life, however, liberation is only at the cost of enslavement.

Artificial intelligence and robotics would free people, but the economy would be destroyed and the society, given low moral standards, would collapse. What would happen to all 'the useless people', an eyesore to overt and undercover technoaryans?

My foreboding is that decline is inevitable, especially with the progress of neuroscience, genetics, AI, robotics, war and mass destruction technologies.

It seems to me, though, that in order to build technology that might “transform [reality] into 100% of information through cognition, we’d have to already know 100% of reality. How could we know the process was complete if we didn’t already know where it ended? — NOS4A2

The best way to know how close we are to 100% is the scale of action. Civilization would at least be of a transgalactic scale, with the technologies of synthetic life and consciousness.

If, for example, you claim that the brain is conscious matter it does not follow that there are two kinds of matter. It may be, that the difference is the organization of matter, that when matter is organized in one way we get unconscious things like rocks and when organized in another way we get brains. — Fooloso4

If we assume physicalism as true, 'matter' has two facets that are different in many ways. There's bosonic matter and fermionic matter in quantum physics. They are subsumed in one concept, but may be totally different. We have some understanding of the aspect in which they overlap, however, in their extremes they may be opposite forms or fundamental reality.

My belief is that consciousness is a separate quantum field having bosonic characteristics. This field is enmeshed into fermionic structures of the brain and is its 'soul structure'. Soul is a particular realization of a cosmic quasi-bosonic 'conscious matter'.

So, there should be a spectrum of matter with the extremes of conscious-unconscious and intermediary structures. Consciousness must be everywhere, but in most cases it has no channels to manifest itself. This is elaborated version of my 'realm theory'. It shows that I reject reductionism.

Mind construct and process has one place in the spectrum, body construct and process has another, 'material' and 'immaterial' reality - still another. Man is an intersection of different 'realms', that don't look like realms only because they are too closely knit together in this nexion.

You have missed the point. It is not a question of whether cognition is a function or an action or both. You claimed that reality has three main realms, mind, external matter and the process of their cognition. The process of cognition is a mental process, not something separate and distinct from mind. — Fooloso4

Put it simply how I see it - mind is brain and brain is both a structure and a process. So we have two structures and two processes: brain/mind structure-mental process-reality process-reality structure. So, we have micro-realms and cosmic realms that are connected this way: cosmic realm (conscious matter) - mind micro-realm (personal substance) - cosmic realm (unconscious matter). I missed your point because you missed mine.

So to you there is no difference between good and ethical. If I read your sentence right. — god must be atheist

The words 'good' and 'ethical' have a narrow meaning and a broad understanding, by which is meant a theory, a system of norms based on it and so on. Yes, the concepts 'good' and 'ethical' are closely connected, but I understand that 'good' may mean many things. Firstly, we have absolute and relative good, that is omnidirectional good and monodirectional good, also good 'according to something', such as an idea, a feeling, a law, a rule, an opinion... However, there is something like high standard ethics, based on high standard good that is the basis of the Western civilization to many people. Philosophy (and science) should try uncover the hidden meaning of the world which is nobodies property. And most rational people who have no flaws of character in their personalities believe that there is inherent good in it (rather than evil). Not owned.

This is a difficult cookie. Ethics are not defined anywhere in its literature, or wherever the word pops up. — god must be atheist

I understand ethics only as a consideration in ones action not to do gratuitous harm to anyone/anything. Why we should/shouldn't do harm? Because we put value in something and care for it. If the world is depicted as meaningless and valueless, to impose this obligation is rather difficult. Scientific knowledge is the main culprit here. Murder becomes only disintegration of living creatures into their natural atomic/molecular state, which is regarded with indifference, since the living state has no special value, it is only a source and resource to be used and exploited. Nothing more. I consider it blindness to what really is around us. The world has meaning not only put by people into it, there also is hidden meaning that is not owned by humans. This is what we should strive for, in my opinion.

Cognition does not connect mind and matter. Cognition is a function of the mind. — Fooloso4

Cognition is both a function and an action. The function emerges from the mind, but acts on and of reality, by doing something to it, perceiving how it changes, observing the laws, relating to it, connecting onto it an so on. There is much more in cognition than a function, concealed in a mind-box. Mind is connection, intention, relation and so on. There is an object, the subject and some process bridging them. Now, I hope, I have expressed the thought more clearly. Everything else follows from this. Misunderstanding occurred only because our boundaries of perception and concepts are different. However, sense and absurdity is not polarized by mere difference in individual perception.

This doesn't really make any sense to me. In my opinion, only a false morality could be shaken by knowledge. — Echarmion

I can partly agree with you, because there may be two kinds of moral sentiment - innate and instilled. What is innate is not easily perverted, whereas the instilled norms, if they are based on fallacious knowledge/faith, are shattered by truth.

This saying is based on some truth on a personal level, but there is no evidence our modern, technological societies are, as a whole, more perverted than past societies. — Echarmion

It only depends on where you 'sit' on the planet. Wouldn't say 'more perverted', I'd say 'as always', but more hypocritic, eyeorgasming and indifferent. More problematic are the elites, especially of a psychopathic breed. Technologies pacified societies in a way, because they solved the problem of survival and created some abundance, but at a big cost and it is growing.

Not everyone agrees morality has, or needs, a divine source. — Echarmion

Morality needs 'the gene of morality', its abundance and domination, curbing of psychopaths, beautiful theories, convincing logic, some control, understanding of the world we live in, the grand picture of universe which is not meaningless and so on.

'God' was a rather primitive 'technology'.

@TheMadFool Ethics, morality is inseparable from the question of free will and freedom. Human beings are free to choose to do good or bad. Generally, doing good is understood as more beneficial from the global point of view. But when the horizon is narrowed down to only ones Ego, the perception changes and there is room for setting oneself in conflict with the whole. This depends on the level of integration and disintegration of society. The more division, conflict, misunderstanding, disrespect, inequality there is the more disintegration. However, nobody has the right to force anyone to be good, therefore there is always room for mischief, wrong choices, mistakes and so on. To balance good and evil is very difficult in these circumstances. Control is not the solution. The more powerful technologies are, the more this situation is uncertain and potentially dangerous. Our fate will eventually depend on chance, and one day our civilization will lose control. (Just a methodical pessimism).

But how are the ethics of scientific research related to the amount of knowledge? It seems to me the ethics would be the same regardless of the level of technology, all else being equal. — Echarmion

To me the relation is obvious, it depends what morality and ethics are founded on. It may be sentiment, reason, 'reality', ideology, society, some .org, brainwashing etc. The more we know, the more shaky these foundations are. Also, there is a psychological factor - power perverts character, and technology is power. Also, we have here the dichotomy faith vs knowledge. Morals has a divine source in its origins - first we have human gods, then heavenly gods, finally GOD. Knowledge promotes logical destruction of these, along with all other arguments. Then we have only left the self preservation instinct, which is erased by mass media in the contemporary society. The result is the dumbing down of an average consumer and arrogance of our masters.

Even given that, he asked what it would follow from. You just clarified a definition. You didn't at all address what it would follow from. — Terrapin Station

The answer was addressed and dressed - it would follow from moral relativism and disrespect to life, inequality, technological supremacy of superpowers, technofascism. Like in becoming cyberpunked degenerates. Slavery.

I think Lepechaun uses his definition as an axiomatic truth. — god must be atheist

I bet this is more like a bad foreboding. What do you mean by 'truth' referring to future events?

If we can't fathom that, then we also can't fathom how little effect we make on the world and ourselves. Some measure should be available before making such a statement. — god must be atheist

I'd rather say FIAT! be the measure. :)

What would this follow from?

@Echarmion

By moral values I mean ethics in scientific research, the lack of which causes disrespect to life. Also, political, economic, and social power that technologies allow to accumulate and the following inequality, based on the ideology of technological supremacy, or technofascism.

Assuming there are no inevitable suicide pact technologies...

@Echarmion

There's no single scenario, I see a lot of possible dangers. Mass suicide would mean stupidity, bigger problem would be mass murder, downfall of civilization and extinction, as in mutual destruction deterrent technologies.

Also, the mentioned disrespect to life would open gates to technologies that do not value human beings, introduce technological slavery into society and create techno-fascist dictatorship. As in genetics, neuroscience, eugenics etc.

Since we know very little about the structure of reality, we can hardly fathom the full effect we make on the world and ourselves.

The more scientists know, the closer humanity is to the abyss.

In my opinion, the concept of infinity is dubious, because it is a mixture of an operand and an operator. If you ask why, the answer is the following. As a quantity infinity is always undefined, since there is no specific quantity in infinity. Therefore the meaning naturally shifts to the point of view of the operator and an unlimited operation of division into mathematical units. Thus, the result is that the operation of unlimited repeated mathematical action is converted into a quantitative operand. Actual infinity exists only in universe, if there are unlimited quantities expressed by parameters. I believe that the difference between actual and potential is only our ability to measure and prove unlimited quantities. Though in the real world this is hardly possible. And to sum up, I think infinity is a useless concept that needs to be rid from mathematics and physics.

In my opinion, the basic symbol necessary to understand consciousness is Ouroboros. The Head is the recipient soul-substance and the Tail is sensory information, transformed into a world view. It is usually shown as a Dragon or a Serpent. The Dragon is a giver of knowledge.

'Reality'...? That is just another word used in social contexts to denote agreement about 'what is the case'.

To me reality is more than just a word. As a word 'reality' is a channel to 'aletheia'. Words have two functions: a) to connect two different, communicating aletheias, b) to connect mind and things in a personal aletheia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia

Things require thingers...

I doubt if there are primitive 'thingers' in philosophy today, even in phenomenology, having a specific method of analysis. Therefore the concept of a thing needs a more precise definition. The thing as I see it is a phenomenon; the thing as I believe, theorize is some quantity of energy, God's creation or what comes to a theoretical/religious/mystical mind. 'Unthinging' of our reality doesn't do anything good to it.

I don't think theories equate to realities - what reality is behind our phenomenal perceptions are our ideas and constructs that are to be believed in. The sequence is mind-perception-phenomenon-projection (of a mental construct) behind it. So we can't tell for sure if it is interactions, flux or 'scrux' expressed as a mysterious formula. Therefore in a way I agree with you that reality at this depth is a useful concept or construct only so far as it is effective. But I still believe that the most perfect form of its representation is in the layer of perception phenomenon, not uglied by mental constructs and fantasies, however effective they would be. Our conscious mind as a whole has two lines of action - summation of signals and their antisummation. Theories of external reality are a result of the latter. So if existence is relative, not absolute, theories are relative two, put in another way - not real, certain truths. 'it Is' means only 'I believe it is'.

Let's say you are right for now. My hand remains functionally the same, although it constantly changes. However, we could assess more precisely how much/many of my hand is the same and how much/many of my hand is different. My impression is that you believe that my/your hand is 1 % the same due to the unchanging function and 99 % different due to all sorts of actions and interactions. I believe that 70 % of energy in atoms is the same and 30 % of energy goes in and out. So we are oscillating energy forms that are rigid enough to counterbalance all influxes and outfluxes. We are the same not only as functions, but also as entities, beings and persons. Do you believe that a person is constant only as a function and all his/her identity is in flux all the time? Don't you believe in unchanging souls (or minds) in terms of identity and personhood? What connects you at the present moment to all past moments if your entire soul must have changed and fluxed out into the surroundings. Electron oscillates with respect to background of space, but it is the same; you move your hand with respect to space, but you only change its position, not the hand itself. We are complexes of electrons that move, but don't change their identity and don't fall apart which is why we call an accumulation of them a 'thing' which is real. Your are just trying to read nature "between the lines".

I suggest you looking at your hand for 10 secs and than tell me in how many ways it 'fluxes' in you head? :) And if it 'fluxes', what mysterious forms you can report to others? I myself see only one shape which is constant and is a thing that is obviously one and same me. Water can flux from one place to another, it assumes shape only when it is contained. Do you flux like water, or you simply move. Is there anything necessary to contain you? I believe that things do not flux, only their perception in consciousness fluxes which is called an illusion of time. Even if we agree that words are containers of 'things' fluxing, reality is a mixture of constancy and change, where constancy has the upper hand, made of interacting things contained by forces making clumps of matter 'thingy'.

If it is your opinion, it needs further elaboration, namely, to discern the thing-centric perspective and the action-centric perspective. I understand, you propose that these two points of view are separated and can exist separately. Here I disagree with you, because the reality has inter-actions between 'things' that have some sort of being, at least at the foundation there must be something irreducible to interactions. Pure interactions do no exist. Furthermore, our consciousness shows a phenomenological world which is made of surfaces that do not show any 'micro-actions' in their structure. These 'surfaces', which are a result of the summation of physiological signals, is the source of the concept of substance, which is later reinterpreted as 'matter'. So what you say is that thing-centric phenomenal world is derived from action-centric chaos of non-entities? How are these two spheres of existence related, in your opinion? How we derive entities from non-entities?

To me 'existence' is simply 'ex[is]tence', therefore to me it is inseparable from a 'state of being'. Before utility, there must be some sort of 'actuality' and 'utility' is just its special case, applied to a specific practical purpose. Mind, without being a substantial entity in the first place, could not be a practically useful human faculty. We are in the opposite places of the spectrum a fundamental and applied characteristic. How something not materially real could be useful in a practical way as a tool. Every tool has to be something, useful tools cannot be made of nothing ex[is]ting.