but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God.
— Agent Smith
Not any more, he types that he is a deist:
If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism
— Gnomon — universeness
I broadly agree, but 'what the word means,' IS a very substantive issue imo. God, science, universe, metaphysics, transcendent, sophist, liar are all words whose contextual meanings are crucial. Depending on what meaning people take from such words, it often cascades into what actions they take in their lives. — universeness
Yes. Over the centuries many influential philosophical worldviews (e.g. Buddhism) have later evolved into popular religions, even though that was not the intent of the originator. For my own purposes, and like my own non-religious worldview, Taoism is a framework for making sense of the complexities & contradictions of the natural world. Any religious practices will merely give practitioners something to do, to make them feel they have some limited control of their destiny. :smile:For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs. — T Clark
Yes. Over the centuries many influential philosophical worldviews (e.g. Buddhism) have later evolved into popular religions, even though that was not the intent of the originator. For my own purposes, and like my own non-religious worldview, Taoism is a framework for making sense of the complexities & contradictions of the natural world. Any religious practices will merely give practitioners something to do, to make them feel they have some limited control of their destiny. :smile:For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs. — T Clark
A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview. — Gnomon
When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos. — Lao Tzu
You seem to be asking for empirical "details" for a general non-physical non-specific concept. That desire for physical details may be the same need for concreteness (idolatry), that caused the Hebrews to give-up on Moses's invisible God, and to construct a Golden Calf to worship. If you are really interested in more details the BothAnd Blog (see below) has lots of speculations upon speculations to choose from. Some, you may even agree with. Otherwise, please just accept the amorphous Deity notion as an unproven Axiom to serve as the foundation for a broadly applicable information-centric theory of everything. :smile:Well, a little more detail in your 'speculations,' may help more of your readers understand where you are coming from. — universeness
I am a non-theist and a naturalist. And I think the "scientific method" is the best way to find answers to empirical questions. But the philosophical methods of inquiry are better suited to formulating plausible answers to non-empirical problems, such as Ontology & Epistemology & Cosmology. If you have no interest in non-physical topics, there's no need for Philosophy. :nerd:I am an atheist and a naturalist and I think that application of the scientific method, is the ONLY way to find the answers to any questions about origins. Philosophers can certainly help a great deal, as their musings can make scientists think in ways that can redirect their focus, and can help them discover new approaches for discovering new knowledge. — universeness
A "bit" (binary digit) was proposed as an information-based analogy to an atom of matter. So what better way to theorize about the beginning of the universe, from an Information-centric perspective? My little scenario of the beginning of the world, is an extrapolation from the philosophical Enformationism thesis. But, if you want scientific credentials, look at physicist John A. Wheeler's "It From Bit" conjecture*1, and his proposals for a Participatory Universe and Anthropic Principle.A bit? Would this not mean you would have to abandon your 'analogue' view as the most credible candidate for a universal fundamental? Surely before you think of something such as 'Quark,' you must first tackle what the quark is formed inside of? What is space made of? Does space have 'quantum fluctuations? — universeness
I was being deliberately provocative. But, how else can you explain the pre-big-bang and pre-space-time existence of Potential (causal power) and Laws (instructions for organization)? I can think of only two options : Eternal Nature (spaceless-timeless physics) or Eternal Mind (god). And both are beyond the reach of empirical evidence. So, I just used the conventional term for a pre-creation Creative Power. But I have other names, if you find the G-word too-woo-woo-for-you. :joke:I was with you for the first few sentences here and then you went to woo woo land.
Why do you decide to plug in a singularity with anthropomorphic 'intent' and invoke the useless god label. Why do you choose to jump from the very rational 'potential to actualize' to ...... god-like-powers. — universeness
. . . . Way! . . . Actually, there is a way to view the universe as a whole system, from a god-like perspective outside the system : Cosmology. It's both a recent scientific venture, and an ancient philosophical conjecture. :cool:The problem here, is that there is no way we currently know of, to observe the universe in its biggest frame of reference (if 'biggest' makes any sense here). — universeness
That is a big responsibility. How might we act on it and manifest a desirable reality? — Athena
Yeah, a good example of how 'silly' human thinking can get. I think your attempt to connect or corralate such fables with anything of significance in the real human experience is a pure conflation, to say the least, BUT I do respect that YOU see value in it.Many ancients thought we were created to help our planet. — Athena
. I am really excited by Gnoman's idea of blending the past with the present. — Athena
:lol: Thanks Athena! :flower:Oh, my love, you do know how to move a conversation forward. — Athena
This is so important to the human miracle of intelligence. I believe computers are essential tools and the internet is essential to the New Age. However, we must keep our focus on the importance of humans, and this forum along with Gnoman's replacement of religion may be a part of the New Age. A time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. — Athena
Yes, things are happening that look bad, but that may be the dark before the dawn. What is essential is how do we react to the bad things that are happening. It is when things become intolerable that we are motivated to create change. I am talking about something AI can not do. Only humans can imagine a better reality and act to manifest it. — Athena
We must build civic associations and voluntarily manifest the New Age. Instead of passively sliding into Armageddon. — Athena
And when it comes to AI spell check reminds me constantly of why I do not believe we should rely on AI.
:grimace: Spell check obviously does not know the meaning of what I am saying and it really frightens me that humans will become overly dependent on this technology as we have become overly dependent on government, and people may give up their own power of thinking and acting. — Athena
It's just as possible that an ASI might be very benevolent towards us. Much more so than humans currently are towards other humans.Part of the problem is the technological change to bureaucracy, which is now so impersonal it crushes individual liberty and power. This is the despot of which Tocqueville warned us. — Athena
There is NO more evidence for a non-intervening god than there is for an intervening one.Deism could be right. There may be a universal god. — Athena
How about this- we do not have all the facts so can we separate the notion of God from the Bible stories? The Bible stories suck, but that does not prove there is no universal god. The best we can do is be okay with not being too sure of ourselves. — Athena
:up:There is NO more evidence for a non-intervening god than there is for an intervening one. — universeness
:fire:It's just as possible that an ASI might be very benevolent towards us. Much more so th[an] humans currently are towards other humans. — universeness
A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet leaves nothing undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done.
When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order.
Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.
Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower.
Therefore accept the one and reject the other. — Daodejing, Chapter 38, translated by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English, 1989
I was talking specifically about the word "metaphysics." It's a subject that is important to me. — T Clark
You seem to be asking for empirical "details" for a general non-physical non-specific concept. — Gnomon
Please don't take me seriously, because I was not proposing the formation of a Deist religion. Years ago, I participated in a local organization based upon a college student's Deist worldview, which came to be known as Universism*1 --- not to be confused with Universalism. The group included a range of philosophical perspectives, from Atheism, Agnosticism, New Age, to Deism. Almost anything except conventional Western religion.So what if we took you seriously and formed a civic association to manifest a new belief? — Athena
"Eminently practical." "You will be happy. And controlled." — 180 Proof
I was responding to your more general point that it's more important to discuss the substantive issues involved than focus on, and probably get bogged down, in debate over what the label 'metaphysics' might or might not encompass. — universeness
I was merely stating that heated debate about what the term encompasses IS substantive imo, and I have not yet got 'fed up talking about it. — universeness
Yep, I noticed!When I start a discussion involving metaphysics, I try to be very explicit about what I mean. Even when I do that, I have to struggle to keep the discussion on topic. — T Clark
:lol: Too much woo for me.Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading? — universeness
I don't know much about Taoism. Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading? — universeness
A much less shallow read on the relation of speculative history to contemporary physics (c1993) is The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon M. Lederman. I've been meaning to read his follow-up Beyond the God Particle which he co-authored after the LHC confirmation of the Higgs Boson. — 180 Proof
So, could be a useful read then for those who are not already aware of the difference.is people mistaking physics for metaphysics and visa versa. The tenets of Taoism are metaphysical principles. The tenets of quantum mechanics are physical, scientific principles. Reading "The Tao of Physics" many years ago was one of the first times I became aware of the difference. — T Clark
So, could be a useful read then for those who are not already aware of the difference. — universeness
I like to listen to someone passionately talk about a book or song or movie that had a big influence in their life and I like to contemplate their reasoning as they present it. — universeness
The only solution is to accommodate as many tastes as possible without compromising individual autonomy. — universeness
but saying something is a matter of taste is not the same as saying it is a matter of opinion. — T Clark
Well, that's just your opinion on the matter of individual taste! — universeness
Are you asking for a profession of faith? The god-model of Enformationism is a product of my own imagination, and I believe in it implicitly. Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview? How much credence do you place in its tenets? Incredulity toward alternative creeds, even those that are held by billions of rational humans, is a sign of healthy skepticism. But blanket skepticism is self-sabotaging for a philosopher.No, I am interested in the personal credence level you assign to posits such as deism, or the actual existence of a prime mover, creator of the universe, that was/is an eternal mind/conscience, with intent and purpose, that caused it to create/be the vital or divine spark that IS the first and only cause that created this universe. I would also like to know as many details as an interlocuter is willing to offer, regarding why they assign the credence level they do, to such posits, and why they have a need for such. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.