Interesting claim. How would you demonstrate this?

For me "the whole cosmos" is an idea the referent of which can never be an object for us. So, it is just an idea. I would opt for pluralism, or as the philosopher Markus Gabriel nicely puts it: "diverse fields of sense".

... à la Nelson Goodman's "irreality".

I'm not familiar; sounds interesting I'll check it out...

Ways of Worldmaking (1978)

This is so interesting. I like how you explained it as the Cosmos is entangled itself. It is hard to understand a vast topic like Cosmos and its varieties.
I think this is where it coincides all the possible debates: philosophy, physics, mathematics, etc... We put basic vocabulary to this vast topic saying "whole Cosmos" as monism/primary and then all the parts as pluralism as you explained previously.

Can truly separate things interact?

Thanks 180...

I am a qualified non-dualist. What that means is that there is, at once, both difference and nondifference. Duality and nonduality.

How this can be explained is not logically, only experientially through yogic meditation.

That's my position. Maybe it's one you've never heard, or maybe you think it's ludicrous.

Share it with your friends.

I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.
Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).
The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself.
(I think Gnomon likes this approach.) — PoeticUniverse

Gnomon likey! :grin:

My worldview is indeed Monistic & Holistic, as opposed to Pluralistic & Reductive. But that all-is-one philosophy takes different forms depending on certain assumptions and interpretations. For example, Spinoza's "substance monism" implies that our physical world is the body of God's mind. But, he didn't pretend to know what God thinks about this imperfect & ailing body. Holism implies that all parts of the world system are "entangled", or otherwise integrated, into a single functional entity. What is the "Force" of Entanglement anyway? FWIW, I call that organizing power : EnFormAction.

But I don't know how to prove that theory empirically or mathematically, unless some quantum entanglement theorists were interested in deriving a philosophical ontology along the lines of Spinoza's worldview. Would they call that Cosmic System "GOD", or just "our-local-bubble-in-the-multiverse"? My question is whether such a God would only relate to & communicate with Her internal parts --- for example, by exchanges of Enformation (Energy)? Or, are there other god-like systems (cosmoses???) out there for our God to commune with. I don't have a clue. Do you? :joke:


Monism is a philosophical and cosmological stance which posits an ultimate Unity of all things, and that all apparent differences, distinctions, divisions and separations are ultimately only apparent or partial aspects of an ultimate whole.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monism

Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.
Note -- "interconnection" = entanglement???

The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

The Meaning of Quantum Holism :
If one endorses quantum holism, one is committed to a minimal requirement for an ontological interpretation of quantum theory: a system has those properties at a given time of which its state is an eigenstate. If one accepts this minimal requirement, one has to acknowledge that entanglement extends as far as the whole of matter at the level of quantum systems.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-1787-8_8

The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse

The only problem with that notion is nailing-down the definition of "entanglement" in this cosmic context. Normally, the term is limited to quantum scale situations. Yet, in physicist Frank Wilczek's article below, it seems that Entanglement is a function of knowledge. So we can assume that it's somehow related to consciousness & awareness, specifically incomplete knowledge. Which leaves the actual "mechanism" as a mystery.

But, for those whose worldview includes a Cosmic Mind, those interconnections & interrelationships could be compared to the network of neurons that meld a tangled mess of wires into a whole system of unitary awareness. Instead of physical wires though, I would guess that the connections are via meta-physical Enformation channels (similar to energy) transporting bits & bytes of Information (potential knowledge).

Ironically, Goedel's Incompleteness theorem says that there is an inherent imperfection in Mathematical Logic, at least within an imperfect world of limited space-time. So, the Global Mind of the physical world may not be as omniscient as an eternal deity. But that does not rule-out a more perfect meta-physical Programmer, as postulated in my thesis. But, I'm just riffing on your theme here, so don't hold me to this guesswork. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a Global Mind. :joke:


Entanglement Made Simple : Entanglement is often regarded as a uniquely quantum-mechanical phenomenon, but it is not. . . . Entanglement arises in situations where we have partial knowledge of the state of two systems.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/

A Quantum Entanglement Revenge
I'm just a miserable bunch of quantum field excitations.
A bag of bags of quarks. And so's my truck.
I was entangled with a gal, but things went South.
We're still ensnared— unmeasured and immeasurable
with no divorce.
Dark energy, dark matter, dark thoughts--
I'll go to the dark side and jump in a black hole.
That'll teach you, bit.... [loss of signal]
___JV Beaupre

I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.

What is a whole, a One, without a boundary? Without a beginning and an end? It’s not whole or one at all. Without the characteristics of finitude there is no such whole. Therefor there is no whole, no one, and the universe is many.

Gnomon likey! — Gnomon

I found this pdf: http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/monism.pdf

I found this pdf: http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/monism.pdf — PoeticUniverse

I've saved a copy of the article to peruse when I have time. But my sense of the whole/part priority question is related to the polarized Top-Down versus Bottom-Up worldviews. Bottom-Up, as in Darwinian evolution, builds-up the whole from aggregation of parts. But the Top-Down view prioritizes the whole : e.g. a unitary Creator -- who exists as an undivided singular eternal whole, but then, in order to create a complex space-time world from its own Substance, begins to divide into smaller parts, that add-up to complexity within unity -- like an ovum turning into a bubbly blastocyst, and eventually into a enformed fetus. Since both processes can be found in reality, my worldview is based on the BothAnd principle. So, whether you see parts or wholes, monism or pluralism, depends on your personal perspective.

Regarding the mechanism of Entanglement that welds the manifold universe into a singular System, here's an article that reports : "New research indicates the whole universe could be a giant neural network" The implication of that assertion is that our Cosmos is like a giant brain. But the article is not about New Age notions of Holism, which views the world system as a Cosmic Mind. Instead, it's about a new attempt to construct a viable Theory of Everything : the Whole Story.

However, the author raises this cautionary caveat : "The root problem with sussing out a theory of everything – in this case, one that defines the very nature of the universe itself – is that it usually ends up replacing one proxy-for-god with another. Where theorists have posited everything from a divine creator to the idea we’re all living in a computer simulation, the two most enduring explanations for our universe are based on distinct interpretations of quantum mechanics". The notion of the universe as a big brain, composed of many neurons, is a pretty good concrete metaphor for the abstract notion of Monism. Yet, of course, "it's just a theory". :nerd:
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2021/03/02/new-research-indicates-the-whole-universe-could-be-a-giant-neural-network/

The substance theory of Aristotle underlies his entire philosophy. Substance theory is the belief that substances are the ultimate things in the universe. The universe at rock bottom is not made up of elementary particles but substances. This is completely different from our modern view of the world.
https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-substance-theory/

Holism : Philosophy
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.

Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Holistic..
Life can exact a heavy toll
Unless you pay heed to your whole;
Your mind, your body and your soul!
___Damian Murphy

an undivided singular eternal whole, but then, in order to create a complex space-time world from its own Substance, begins to divide into smaller parts, that add-up to complexity within unity — Gnomon

In physics, the well proposed multiplicity from unity is thought to be of covariant quantum fields' excitations acting as particles that, although secondary and temporary, can last last quite a while due to their quantum unit charge or quantum unit strength, and are thus then able to form more complexities, on up to minds. Seems that something in the unity needs to be responsible for what particular energy levels got chosen to make the 'particles' that would work or else they are the default. Each level seems to 'code' for the next one, from particles to a few atomic elements to stars to higher atomic elements to molecules to cells, to life, to consciousness.

Seems that something in the unity needs to be responsible for what particular energy levels got chosen to make the 'particles' that would work or else they are the default. — PoeticUniverse

In my layman's philosophical thesis, what's "responsible" for initiating the "multiplicity from unity" sequence of events is Intention. That hypothesis is not based on any quantum field theories, but on a general comprehension of how a causal Agent (the unity) is responsible for its effects. My understanding of Quantum Theory is superficial. I know just enough to be dangerous. :cool:

Intention : Purpose, inclination, motive

Motive : Does God have emotional urges, like humans, that overwhelm the rational mind? Or does G*D create for no practical reason? My guess is that eternal/infinite, omniscient/ omnipotent deity lacks only one thing : imperfection. So creating space-time worlds may be the only way to experience change, desire, love, need, etc. In a state of perfection there is nothing to do . . . except create.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html
Note -- "God" = traditional anthro-morphic deity ; "G*D" = hypothetical abstract integral Unity (ALL; Whole) from which our multiplex world emerged in the Big Bang.

Have you read this book? I just finished it. https://www.4evangiles.fr/pdf/Wilber/1984%20-%20Quantum%20Questions%20-%20Mystical%20writings%20of%20the%20world%27s%20greatest%20physicists.pdf

Have you read this book? I just finished it. — Dharmi

I have read some of Wilbur's intriguing books, but not that one. I tend to agree with most of his critique of Modernism & Scientism. But, I'm not personally inclined to go to the opposite extreme of New Age mysticism. Empirical Science is imperfect and incomplete, but it has the virtue of avoiding imaginary mystical magical answers to mundane pragmatic questions. So, my position is somewhere between those polar oppositions. :cool:

I reject New Age philosophy also, but I think it's closer to the truth than mere naive empiricism. I don't see how a mystical answer is somehow "imaginary."

our multiplex world — Gnomon

Speaking of complexity's progression, Julian Barbour as it that complexity is literally time, rather than of its opposite of disorder continuing on.

How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning?

What is a whole, a One, without a boundary? — NOS4A2

This appears to be a problem, for the impossible 'Nothing' cannot be outside the One, making the One having to be of 'Infinite' extent, which is another problem, perhaps, since 'Infinite' is never complete and accomplished, leaving an impossible One, with all then being relative, if that's the right word.

I reject New Age philosophy also, but I think it's closer to the truth than mere naive empiricism. I don't see how a mystical answer is somehow "imaginary." — Dharmi

Some dictionary sites give "imaginary" as a synonym for "mystical". But my primary concern for mystical worldviews is the synonym "occult". Labeling some aspects of the world as "occult", or "taboo" is a traditional tactic of religious leaders to "pull the wool" over the eyes of their followers. It implies that your puny human reasoning is incapable of learning some truths. Hence, you must take on faith that your guru or mystical guide has a direct line to God or to the Akashic Field.

Long ago, I learned that Faith is a leash for "leading people around by the nose", so to speak. So, I don't trust anyone who claims to know something that is not accessible to mundane observation and reasoning (e.g .the scientific method). But, I also don't take the word of scientific priests for "truths" that are so far over my head that I have to take them on Faith. "Naive empiricism" is also a form of child-like Faith in the preternatural objectivity of scientists . Sophisticated Skepticism is like an amulet for warding-off the evil spirits of Occultism.

A comical example of New Age faith in mystical abilities is the absurd phenomenon of "Yogic Flying". Maharishi assured his Transcendental Meditators that his techniques could give them magical powers, such as the ability to fly. So, they took his folk tale literally, and sincerely tried to prove their faith by "flying" while in the cross-legged position. What you can learn from this trivial example is that Faith can lead people to do things that are "beyond reason", such as handling poisonous snakes during church services.

FWIW, I like some elements of Eastern philosophy, but most Eastern and New Age religions are just as manipulative of naive minds as Western religions. :cool:

Naive Empiricism refers to the belief that scientist should try to be as objective and neutral as possible when studying something. Scientists should approach a problem with no preconceived expectations or assumptions which have not been previously studied and justified using the scientific method.
http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/na/Naive_Empiricism

Occult : supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena. . . .
cut off from view by interposing something.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note -- to occult (verb) is to cut off from the light --- of reason.

International Yogic Flying Competition :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUnxnuUVEOs

Some dictionary sites give "imaginary" as a synonym for "mystical". — Gnomon

Well, that's hugely mistaken.

But my primary concern for mystical worldviews is the synonym "occult". Labeling some aspects of the world as "occult", or "taboo" is a traditional tactic of religious leaders to "pull the wool" over the eyes of their followers. — Gnomon

That's also hugely mistaken. The word mystical originally comes from the Greek word for mystery (mysterion) and heavily related to the Greek word for "initiate" (mystikos). It has no connotation of something imaginary. If you mean occult in the sense of "hidden" which is what the Latin word means, I suppose thats valid. But not in the sense of occult philosophy or occult spirituality, in that New Age, demonic, Luciferian sense.

Hence, you must take on faith that your guru or mystical guide has a direct line to God or to the Akashic Field. — Gnomon

Well, you cannot remove your ego by yourself, that's why a guru is there. To help guide you out of your own egoic delusion. The word guru in Sanskrit is synonymous with the word educator. Educare meaning, "to draw out" Gu-ru meaning, "to draw one out of darkness into light" in Sanskrit.

I don't trust anyone who claims to know something that is not accessible to mundane observation and reasoning (e.g .the scientific method). — Gnomon

So do you trust things like the multiverse, or quantum mechanics which is not accessible to mundane observation? I do.

But, I also don't take the word of scientific priests for "truths" that are so far over my head that I have to take them on Faith. "Naive empiricism" is also a form of child-like Faith in the preternatural objectivity of scientists . — Gnomon

Alright, so you don't hold to Scientism, or to brute empiricism, what exactly do you hold to? Pyrrhonian Skepticism?

A comical example of New Age faith in mystical abilities is the comical phenomenon of "Yogic Flying". Maharishi assured his Transcendental Meditators that his techniques could give them magical powers, such as the ability to fly. So, they took his folk tale literally, and sincerely tried to prove their faith by "flying" while in the cross-legged position. — Gnomon

Yeah, Maharishi is one of many many many of the fake gurus "flying" around during Kali yug.

FWIW, I like some elements of Eastern philosophy, but most Eastern and New Age religions are just as manipulative of naive minds as Western religions. :cool: — Gnomon

Good. Well, our philosophy is indistinguishable from the religion. Since the Sages of the Vedic Scriptures claim they received this from God-realized Sages. New Age religion is not Vedic. It's based on Neo-Vedanta, which isn't Vedanta at all.

I don't deny there's a lot of fraudgurus going around, but that doesn't mean that all gurus are false, in the same way that just because there are many false positions doesn't mean there are no true positions. If we compare these fraudgurus' views and teachings to what the Vedic Scriptures define as a true guru, and we see if they have the proper credentials and qualifications to be a true guru (Satguru) then majority of these fraudgurus (such as Sadguru) fall infinitely short. Even they'll admit, openly and publicly, that they are fraudgurus.

Naive Empiricism refers to the belief that scientist should try to be as objective and neutral as possible when studying something. Scientists should approach a problem with no preconceived expectations or assumptions which have not been previously studied and justified using the scientific method. — Gnomon

No, naive empiricism is the view that nothing can be known apart from what our immediate sense-perception picks up. Also, that our sense perception picks up true knowledge.

How does one, in their endarkenment distinguish between true and false gurus?

The Vedic Scriptures give us many many credentials a true guru (Satguru) must have.

But one obvious way to tell, one way that disqualifies 99% of fake gurus right out the gate, is if they're selling a "new" meditation method, or if they're founders of a "new" movement.

We have the original sampradayas, the original meditation method in Shree Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. So anyone selling you any "new" method or a movement, is a fraud. That disqualifies the majority of them right out the gate.

There are plenty other credentials one could use, but that one alone is sufficient in the vast majority of cases. It deals with Sadguru, Maharishi, most of these New Age frauds by itself.

The Vedic scriptures, Buddhism and so on were all "new movements" in their day, so I don't see how they can help. Why should we accept their authority just because they are old and have become socially entrenched as religious traditions?

The same way you accept anything as truth. You a) rely on the experts, the authorities who know this field and b) do the experiment yourself.

Is there any other way you have of finding out the truth?

How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning? — PoeticUniverse

I'll preface by admitting that, like Socrates, I know nothing about such preposterous questions. But that doesn't stop me from guessing and speculating, for my own amusement. I don't expect anyone to take my guesstures as gospel truth. However, I have developed a personal worldview to take the place of the gospel of my youth. That idiosyncratic view of the world is Enformationism. And it's a mish-mash of philosophical bits & bytes from ancient history to modern futurism.

When I outgrew my religious indoctrination, I didn't immediately become an all-knowing Atheist, but an inquiring Agnostic. That's because Atheism ignores some personally important philosophical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing?". A typical evasive answer is "there has always been something. But the best scientishish hypothetical answer(s( to date is(are) the various versions of Multiverses or Many Worlds. So, I read those conjectures as fiction, not fact. Meanwhile, I am currently growing my own personal fictional narrative from a seed of Information/Quantum Theory. And the starting point begins before there was any material thing, hence pre-Big Bang. That Cosmic Origin is what I call "The Enformer", or "Cosmic Programmer", or sometimes as "G*D", for those who don't grok my made-up terms.

Like the Multiverse, The Enformer is assumed to be eternal & infinite. But, since my worldview is Information-based instead of Materialistic, my G*D is envisioned as a disembodied Mind. Beyond that axiomatic starting-point, I can only use limited logic to infer what other attributes the First Cause of our world must have, in order for our observed causes & effects to be what we see. For example, I don't know if the Whole Mind is conscious like all the many particular mini-minds we encounter in human-to-human communication. All I know is that the Enformer must, following Aristotelian Logic, have the Potential for Consciousness. Consequently, I don't model the Great Mind as an anthro-morphic Person, but as merely infinite Potential, for which anything is possible.

That prologue out of the way, I can refer you to some of my fictional stories, devised to explain to myself how the world we know & love came to be what it is, and where it might be headed. At this point in the evolution of the original Singularity, assumed to be programmed with EnFormAction, the human mind seems to be the penultimate form of consciousness. Yet, I can only speculate on what forms of being & knowing will emerge in the future. And my guesstures on such topics can be found under the heading of Intelligent Evolution, or Enformationism, or Cosmic Progression, etc.

To answer your question more directly : the highest mind so far in evolution is only slightly higher than that of a spineless octopus. So we have a long way to go --- to come close to being space-time gods. Teilhard deChardin concocted a semi-plausible story of what the climax of evolution (Omega Point) would be when the material world becomes so perfect that it achieves something like god-hood. That's similar to my own speculative fiction, except that my G*D is not the Christian Logos. And I don't think the part-minds will ever touch the asymptote of the Whole Mind. Does that answer your question??? :chin:


Guesstures : my made-up word for postulations based on best guesses.

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Introduction to Enformationism : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Cosmic Progression from Ø to ∞ : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning? — PoeticUniverse

This question is already dealt with in Upanishadic philosophy. Our minds, our true selves, Atman is Brahman. That is, our True Self is Divine. Tat Tvam Asi.

However, many misunderstand this to mean that we are god, or we are gods. This is not accurate.

We are Brahman, but we are not Parabrahman. We are Atman, but we are not Paratman. There's a Supreme Mind underlying our minds.

The same way you accept anything as truth. You a) rely on the experts, the authorities and b) do the experiment yourself.

Is there any other way you have of finding out the truth? — Dharmi

That's fine for everyday life, where your getting it right or not is mostly not that critical. With most scientific knowledge, it is not possible to "do the experiment yourself" so we have to rely on the peer reviewed consensus.

When it comes to everyday matters you can often find out what is the case for yourself but it's not always possible. It's not even possible to know whether there really are true gurus (enlightened beings) at all; it really remains a question of faith at every level.

Anyone who believes themselves to be enlightened and able to pass on their knowledge to others could well be deceiving themselves. But if going down such a path makes you happy, then why not, eh?