Love’s spirit weaves the soul’s warp, weft, and wave,
Creating an eternal, perfect braid,
Wound from strands of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty;
Each different forms, but from the same All made. — PoeticUniverse

This expression reminded me of Douglas Hofstadter's book : Gödel, Escher, Bach -- The Eternal Golden Braid. It weaves a complex argument for Evolutionary Emergence : "that consciousness arises from organisms crossing a complexity threshold. Seasoned with ideas from chaos theory, complex adaptive systems theory, and what came to be called the study of emergence."*1 Emergence theories attempt to explain --- contrary to Atomism/Reductionism --- how sophisticated novel functions, such as Life & Mind, can evolve from simple formal beginnings.

For example, some thinkers interpret the Singularity*2 as merely a compressed particle of matter ; while others view it more like cosmic DNA, the braid of life : containing all the mathematical information necessary for the gradual construction of a physical universe with built-in observers. In my own worldview, that non-dimensional Singularity functions like a computer program by "braiding" bits of abstract information into a plethora of forms. So all real forms are made from the same ideal Information, which I call EnFormAction, of which physical Energy is the best known instance.

The philosophical enigma of the Big Bang theory is : how did the Singularity come to compress a vast universe into a minuscule seed of data?*3 Several possible solutions have been proposed : A. Cosmological Principle, infinite, hence unlimited possible states (multiverse) ; B. Cyclic Cosmology, eternal cycles of physical expansion & contraction of matter as an alternative to instantaneous Inflation from quantum fluctuations ; C. Miracuous act of creation by an eternal deity in need of slavish worshippers ; D. Dramatic execution of an information program (poiesis) encoded in a seed-like Singularity, for unknown reasons, written by Whitehead's anonymous poetic principle of concretion. :smile:


*1. https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1ay0xoo/godel_escher_bach_the_eternal_golden_braid/

*2. In the context of the Big Bang theory, a singularity refers to a hypothetical point of infinite density and temperature, where all known physical laws break down, and from which the universe is thought to have originated.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+singularity

*3. In particular, the big bang model of the universe begins with a singularity—a point that appeared out of nothing and contained the precursors of everything in the universe in a region so small that it had essentially no size at all.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-began-with-a-bang-not-a-bounce-new-studies-find/

Love’s spirit weaves the soul’s warp, weft, and wave,
Creating an eternal, perfect braid,
Wound from strands of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty;
Each different forms, but from the same All made. — PoeticUniverse

Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are human evaluations of their environment. And not necessarily properties of the world-weaving Poet, except in unactualized potential. However, the transcendent creator of a dynamic evolving emerging world is required by logical necessity to include opposing forces, such as hot & cold or action & reaction. So, the natural world is a process of Causes & Effects, which human poets & philosophers describe --- from the mortal human perspective --- in terms of experienced oppositions such as Good & Evil.

But some religious apologists & moralists, in their cosmologies, begin with the assumption that God per se is the ideal of Truth, Goodness & Beauty, hence fallen man by comparison is False, Evil, & Repugnant. Even Whitehead uses similar poetic terms to describe his poet-god. But, his eternal Principle of Concretion*1 seems to be the Potential for all possibilities, including both good & evil, both positive & negative, both beautiful & ugly. Although homo sapiens may be the most highly evolved creatures on Earth, we are still a work in progress, and fall short of godly perfection.

Therefore, I think of Whitehead's actual world as equivalent to Spinoza's immanent Nature-god : it is Nature in toto, woven from strands of oppositions that sentient beings interpret as Good or Bad for their own survival. Yet, Whitehead's logically inferred deus sive natura was described as "transcendent", in the sense that any creator or programmer stands apart from its creation. Although I doubt that he was aware of the Big Bang theory, which emerged years after the book, his cosmology was defined in terms of Epochs, that could be interpreted as amenable to the current models*2.

This program of world poiesis is still an ongoing process, hence Reality is not fully actualized. And its Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are relative, not absolute. :smile:


PS___ I read Process and Reality about 20 years ago, but didn't fully understand it. So I'm using this thread to deepen my prehension of his worldview in order to improve my own. Your poems are useful for stimulating new ways of thinking about the poetic Process and the prosaic Reality.


*1. What is God according to Whitehead? :
In Whitehead's metaphysics, God functions as a "principle of concretion." Put differently, God is what determines which things move from a state of possibility to a state of actuality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/zpyo5u/can_someone_explain_whiteheads_conception_of_god/

*2. Whitehead’s Cosmic Epochs and Contemporary Cosmology :
The notions of the big bang and a dynamic, expanding universe are consistent with Whitehead’s notion of what occurs within a cosmic epoch.
https://www.csun.edu/~lmchenry/documents/CosmicEpochs%5B1%5D.pdf

poiesis — Gnomon

Poetic Report:

We are both essence and form, as poems versed,
Ever unveiling our live’s deeper thirsts,
As new riches, from strokes, letters, phonemes,
Words, phrases, and sentences—uni versed.

We have rhythm, reason, rhyme, meter, sense,
Metric, melody, and beauty’s true pense,
Revealed through life’s participation,
From the latent whence into us hence.

The weave of the quantum fields as strokes writes
The letters of the elemental bytes—
The alphabet of the standard model,
Forming the words as the atoms whose mights

Merge to form molecules, as phrases,
Onto proteins and cells, as sentences,
Up to paragraphs of organisms,
And unto the stories of the species.

In this concordance of literature,
We are the Cosmos’ book of adventure,
As a uni-verse of sentient poems,
Being both the contained and the container.

Our poem is both the thought and the presence,
An object born from the profoundest sense,
An image of diction, feeling, and rhythm;
We’re both the existence and the essence.

Informationally derived meanings
Unify in non-reductive gleanings,
In a relational reality,
Through the semantical life happenings.

Syntactical information exchange,
Without breaking of the holistic range,
Reveals the epic whole of nature’s poetics,
Within her requisite of ongoing change.

So there’s form before gloried substance,
Relationality before the chance
Of material impressions rising,
Traced in our world from the gestalt’s dance.

All lives in the multi–dimensional spaces
Of basic superpositional traces
Of Possibility, as like the whirl’s
Probable clouds of distributed paces.

I think of Whitehead's actual world as equivalent to Spinoza's immanent Nature-god [ ... ]. Yet, Whitehead's logically inferred deus sive natura[panentheism] was described as "transcendent", in the sense that any creator or programmer stands apart from its creation. — Gnomon

:rofl: Again, "immanent" is "equivalent to" not-immanent (i.e. "transcendent"). Good job! :clap:

We are both essence and form, — PoeticUniverse

Materialism takes the existence of the myriad concrete forms for granted, without questioning the underlying essence (the information ; EnFormAction ; mathematical structure) that causes form change. In topology, that immaterial interrelationship structure is often represented symbolically as lines of force. In architecture those abstract vectors are converted into concrete elements of physical structure. Engineers can "see" (visualize) those essential abstract lines, while laymen see only the superficial material. But modern computers can make those invisible lines visible {image below}. :smile:


In his dialogues Plato suggests that concrete beings acquire their essence through their relations to "forms"—abstract universals logically or ontologically separate from the objects of sense perception. These forms are often put forth as the models or paradigms of which sensible things are "copies".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

In general, information has been considered as the following essences: as structures; processes (like becoming informed); changes in a knowledge system; some type of knowledge (for example, as personal beliefs or recorded knowledge); some type of data; an indication; intelligence; lore; wisdom; an advice; an accusation ...
https://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/wiener05.pdf

Informationally derived meanings
Unify in non-reductive gleanings,
In a relational reality,
Through the semantical life happenings. — PoeticUniverse

Information is the invisible interrelations that the human mind interprets holistically as meaning. Information is the syntax & semantics of the world around us. :smile:

For Whitehead, God is not necessarily tied to religion. Rather than springing primarily from religious faith, Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

In Philosophy Now magazine (feb/mar 2025) a letter-to-the-editor said about the Return of God article : "disproof is not a necessity for me. All that is necessary for me is the lack of any reason I can accept to give the God hypothesis serious consideration."
Note --- Presumably the only "reasons" he could accept are physical demonstrations. Which, ironically leaves philosophical reasoning out of the question.

Same magazine : "reasoning without reference to empirical data is appropriate when applied to phenomena which transcend the physical world or constitute its ground of being, such as God".
Note --- If the physical universe could be proven to be self-existent, then a transcendent Cause would be unnecessary. The Big Bang is not proof of God, but it is an indication that our universe is contingent upon something outside of Space-Time as we know it. We accept transcendental numbers & equations because they are useful for the abstract purposes of mathematics.
Note --- Phenomena that transcend the physical world are Noumena (ideas ; ideals).

Obviously, Whitehead's God is neither provable nor disprovable by empirical scientific methods. So, he made no scientific claims. He merely observed an evolving physical (matter) & metaphysical (mind) universe, and made a logical deduction of its metaphysical provenance. Atheists tend to deny all metaphysical arguments, relying simply on Appeal to the Stone. This is a reference to Samuel Johnson's counter-argument to Berkeley's God : he kicked a rock to demonstrate that it was real (i.e. material), as opposed to the unreal (Ideal) deity. Thus, he demonstrated his low opinion of philosophical metaphysics.

A. N. Whitehead was a mathematician, so grounding his metaphysical worldview in a non-empirical axiom is understandable. An Axiom (Greek : Worthy) is not a sensory observation, but a conceptual proposition on which an abstractly defined logical structure is based. Since over 90% of humans over all time have believed in some kind of invisible deity (represented in symbols), he could assume that the general concept would be accepted by most people. Of course, atheists are exceptional, in that they demand hard evidence for any belief. But Whitehead developed his Process theory first, and only added the God postulate later, when the system needed a universally applicable foundation. Obviously, he found that transcendent notion useful for his abstract philosophical purposes. :smile:


Metaphysical immanentism restricts reality either to the data of human experience furnished by the senses, as in the empiricism of D. hume and his positivist heirs, or to the data of human thought, as in subjective idealism.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/immanentism
Note --- Whitehead's god postulate is based on the "subjective idealism" of metaphysical Mathematical reasoning. His transcendental God has no role in scientific practice, but is just as reasonable and useful as Transcendental Numbers, Sets, Infinity, Zero, etc.

human experience — Gnomon

The Web of Life

Life's a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows,
Stretched as time between eternal boughs.
Gossamer threads bear the beads that glisten,
Each moment a sequence of instant nows.

Dew-dropped strands catch morning’s golden light,
While spider-silk of dreams spans day and night,
Each crossing point a choice that might have been,
Each junction where our paths could take their flight.

The present dangles on this cosmic lace,
A trembling drop in vast eternal space,
While past events string out behind like pearls,
And future moments wait to take their place.

Some threads lead up toward heaven’s distant peak,
Some spiral down where darker answers seek,
While others stretch horizontal through time,
Where cause and effect their pattern speak.

The web vibrates with every choice we make,
Each action sends fresh ripples in its wake,
While distant strands, connected, feel the touch—
What quantum tangles in our movements wake!

Between the threads swim particles of chance,
Like fireflies that through the evening dance,
Each flash illuminates a different path
Through which our destinies might advance.

The ancient spinners weave with patient care,
Each filament of fate both strong and rare,
While we, poor flies caught in this grand design,
See beauty in the trap that holds us there.

Some strands are spun from joy’s pure golden light,
Some dark with grief that dims the stars at night,
Yet all together form the pattern whole
That makes our brief existence burning bright.

The web holds memories like morning dew,
Each droplet showing different points of view,
While time flows on, refreshing every strand
With possibilities both false and true.

So dance upon these threads while still you may,
For though they quiver, still they hold their sway,
And in their intricate connecting lines
Lies meaning for our brief cosmic stay.

human experience — Gnomon
The Web of Life
Life's a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows, . . . .
Some threads lead up toward heaven’s distant peak,
Some spiral down where darker answers seek, . . . .
And in their intricate connecting lines
Lies meaning for our brief cosmic stay — PoeticUniverse

Whitehead's metaphysical worldview encompasses all of the various human experiences*1, including Who, What, When, and Why? Empirical Science focuses on What & How? So, it overlooks the subjective & spiritual aspects of human experience. However, the soft subjective science of Psychology does accept "spiritual" experiences as valid topics for investigation*2. Process Philosophy established no religious doctrines of spirituality, but it does make allowances for the diversity of human experiences*3, which each mind can interpret as they see fit.

My understanding of Spirituality over the eons of human nature, is based on Emotional feelings rather than Rational facts. And, I personally tend to value the rational over the emotional, but that's just me. Yet I'm not atheist or political enough to despise an essential feature of human nature. Some people are sheep, who need to be led to communal Faith. I may not agree with their particular beliefs, but I believe in freedom of belief, because that's the ground of "meaning for our brief cosmic stay". :grin:


*1.What are the 5 human experiences? :
Coaches who support clients to create profound sustainable change will work with the 'whole' person, or as we say, at the five levels of human experience: the physical, mental, emotional, intuitive and spiritual. This is with the belief our mind, body, heart and soul are all connected.
https://www.empower-world.com/blog/supporting-our-clients-at-the-five-levels-of-the-human-experience

*2. The psychology of spirituality, or transpersonal psychology, explores the spiritual and transcendental aspects of human experience, seeking to understand how connection to something beyond the self can lead to growth and self-development. It integrates spirituality and consciousness studies into psychological theory, often exploring themes like meaning, purpose, and connection
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=psychology+of+spirituality

*3. Reconciling Diverse Intuitions: It aims to reconcile diverse human experiences, including religious, scientific, and aesthetic intuitions, into a coherent, holistic framework
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=process+philosophy+spiritualism

Why should we prefer 'process philosophy/ontology' against the traditional 'substance theory/ontology' in metaphysics? — Metaphysics of Science
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/1eej0sd/why_should_we_prefer_process_philosophyontology/

Materialism is a Substance philosophy, which focuses on the elementary stuff (phenomena) our physical senses are designed to detect. Everything else is interpreted as incidental epiphenomena. Process Ontology is an Evolutionary philosophy, focused on the dynamics (causes ; changes) of the physical world. And two of those evolutionary changes, emergence of biological Life and Psychological Mind, are of special interest to seekers of wisdom.

But why should posters on a philosophy forum focus more on the changes (Causation & Effects) than on the raw stuff being modified, developed, and organized? Einstein provided one good reason for Process preference in his E=MC^2 equation*1. Which implies that causal Energy is more fundamental & universal than the myriad forms of matter.

Ancient philosophers and scientists typically used terms like "Spirit"*2 in reference to what we now know as "Energy". Both are invisible causes of all things (objects) and changes (motion, modification) that we perceive in the world. So, the power to create physical substances and to cause changes in matter seems to be the most important factor in the philosophical view of Nature. Modern Energy may be the Essence that Aristotle defined as essential to Nature*3. Scientific Knowledge may be awareness of material facts, but Philosophical Wisdom is understanding of causes & relationships. :smile:


*1. Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying, "Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. Matter is spirit reduced to a point of visibility. There is no matter.". He also famously stated, "Everything is energy and that's all there is to it," which underscores the fundamental equivalence of matter and energy. This idea is further supported by his E=mc² equation, which demonstrates that mass and energy are fundamentally interchangeable.
PS___ The quote you mentioned is often attributed to Albert Einstein, but there is no direct evidence that he actually said or wrote those exact words. It reflects a philosophical interpretation of Einstein's theories, particularly his famous equation E=mc2, which describes the relationship between mass (matter) and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+matter+energy+quote
Note --- Quora Asistance Bot :
Einstein did express ideas related to the nature of matter and energy in various writings and speeches, but this specific quote is not found in his documented works. It's more likely a paraphrase or interpretation of his views on the relationship between matter and energy.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Albert-Einstein-say-Concerning-matter-we-have-been-all-wrong-What-we-have-called-matter-is-energy-whose-vibration-has-been-so-lowered-as-to-be-perceptible-to-the-senses-There-is-no-matter

*2. The term "spirit" is used metaphorically to represent a fundamental, underlying reality or energy from which all matter is derived.
While Einstein's words have been interpreted in various ways, they generally point to a view of reality where energy is the fundamental substance, and matter is a condensed or manifested form of that energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Matter+is+spirit+reduced+to+a+point+of+visibility

*3. In Aristotelian philosophy, substance refers to a thing's fundamental and durable nature, the thing itself, while essence is what makes a thing what it is, its defining characteristic. In simpler terms, substance is the "what" of a thing, while essence is the "whatness" or the defining properties that make it that kind of thing.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+essence+and+substance

seekers of wisdom — Gnomon

seekers of wisdom — Gnomon

The Cosmic Conversations video mentioned "Persia Fume" as something that might be of cosmic significance. So, I Googled it and found the image below, but not much else. It portrays an ornate bottle of perfume as-if it has spiritual significance : note the black & white angel emerging from the bottle. What does this mean for "seekers of wisdom"? :smile:

The Persian chemist Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna) introduced the process of extracting oils from flowers by means of distillation, the procedure most commonly used today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume

In a spiritual context, an "angel of alchemy" often represents the divine guidance and transformative power associated with alchemical practices. These angels are seen as keepers of alchemical knowledge and guardians of the alchemical process, helping individuals to find their own path of inner transformation and self-realization.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=angel+of+alchemy+meaning

The MAGIC MOUNTAIN
by Thomas Mann, 1926
"“Aristotle? Didn’t Aristotle place in the individual the reality of universal ideas? That is pantheism.”

“Wrong. When you postulate independent being for individuals, when you transfer the essence of things from the universal to the particular phenomenon, which Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, as good Aristotelians, did, then you destroy all unity between the world and the Highest Idea; you place the world outside of God and make God transcendent. That, my dear sir, is classic mediævalism.”

“Classic medievalism! What a phrase!” “Pardon me, I merely apply the concept of the classic where it is in place: that is to say, wherever an idea reaches its culmination. Antiquity was not always classic. And I note in you a general repugnance to the Absolute;"

By contrast with medieval Scholasticism, Whitehead's god-model portrays the Cause of the Process we call Evolution as both Immanent (evolving physical world) and Transcendent (primordial potential for being) : PanEnDeism. I view this model as an update of Spinoza's deus sive natura, to accommodate modern cosmology, which found evidence of a First Tick and Prime Time of our contingent & temporary space-time universe, as it is currently being mapped by physical Science. :nerd:

an update of Spinoza's deus sive natura, to accommodate modern cosmology — Gnomon

Funny thing, though, Einstein didn't see a reason for "an update of Spinoza's Deus, sive nature, perhaps because he actually studied Spinoza, unlike you, Mr Enformer-of-the-gaps, and therefore does not conflate, or confuse, metaphysics with physics as pseudo-thinkers do. Fwiw, the philosophical speculation I find most parsimonious and consistent with "modern cosmology" is pandeism¹ (not your "PanEnDeism" or panentheism or pantheism).

(2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/607424 [1]

Cosmic — Gnomon

Vacation Planets: A Cosmic Tour

Uranus tilts and tumbles through the void,
Its icy winds would leave one quite annoyed,
Yet compared to Pluto’s frozen sphere,
It’s practically a resort asteroid.

Poor Pluto, like a puppy left outside,
Was stripped of planet status, dignity denied;
Now orbits with the Kuiper Belt debris—
A cosmic demotion it must abide.

In Hell’s own realm it now holds court supreme,
With Charon dancing round in endless dream;
Better king of dwarf worlds, so they say,
Than ninth planet in the solar team.

"Persia Fume" — Gnomon

It could be ageless rhymes from ancient times rising up from Omar's tomb.

During his years of teaching philosophy at Harvard University, Alfred North Whitehead aroused newly intense questions concerning God and the World. Here are some selections from Religion in the Making, Science and the Modern World and Process and Reality.

# Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things;

# Today there is but one religious dogma in debate: What do you mean by “God”?

# There are three main simple renderings of this concept before the world.

1. The Eastern Asiatic concept of an impersonal order to which the world conforms. This order is the self-ordering of the world; it is not the world obeying an imposed rule. The concept expresses the extreme doctrine of immanence.

2. The Semitic concept of a definite personal individual entity, whose existence is the one ultimate metaphysical fact, absolute and underivative, and who decreed and ordered the derivative existence which we call the actual world. This Semitic concept is the rationalization of the tribal gods of the earlier communal religions. It expressed the extreme doctrine of transcendence.

3. The Pantheistic concept of an entity to be described in the terms of the Semitic concept, except that the actual world is a phase within the complete fact which is this ultimate individual entity. The actual world, conceived apart from God, is unreal. Its only reality is God’s reality. The actual world has the reality of being a partial description of what God is. But in itself it is merely a certain mutuality of “Appearance,” which is a phase of the being of God. This is the extreme doctrine of monism.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1925/08/religion-and-science/304220/

My childhood religion taught the Semitic god-concept, but I eventually realized that the Bible was not the revelation of a Hebrew tribal-God, but the work of imperial Roman compilers & editors . So, I gave-up on my inherited religion, but had no philosophical alternative to a god of some kind, to explain the existence of the evolving reality outside of myself.

I was not impressed by the polytheistic Oriental god-models, but godless Buddhism seemed acceptable as a stoic philosophy of self-reliance. Yet modern Science goes beyond mere acquiescence to Fate, and provides a plausible account of the How, if not the Why of the world. So, my current worldview is focused mainly on the open Why questions.

I only became aware of modern non-religious philosophical worldviews late in life. For example, Immanent Pantheism*1, such as Spinoza's deus sive natura, made some sense to me, with one major shortcoming : his 17th century nature-God turns-out to be a temporary flash-in-the-pan, compared to eternal universal principles such as Logos & Brahman. Moreover, his predestined machine-like world --- and its sentient creatures --- was completely determined by the laws of Nature, hence no Free Will. And his "nothing new under the sun" assertion, denied the fecundity & creativity that is now undeniable in cosmic Evolution*2.

So again acquiescence to Fate seemed to be Spinoza's only viable philosophical option. Ironically, the time-bound law-maker God was deemed subject to its own laws & limitations. Spinoza axiomatically assumed that his god-substance (matter) was self-existent. Yet, The scientific Big Bang theory portrays our Cosmos (Nature) as a temporary process, with a sudden birth-like beginning and an inevitable Entropic end. To avoid the obvious creator-god implications, a variety of unverifiable transcendent conjectures, such as Inflation & Multiverse & Cycleverse have been imagined, as place-holders for the traditional transcendent deities.

Cosmologists were astonished that the material world began with an impossibly low level of Entropy, and high level of causal potential (Energy). Which implies that insubstantial & invisible Energy is more fundamental than the complex & crumbling material substances that eventually evolved from near-infinite Potential and near nothing Actual. Therefore, the self-organizing & dis-organizing material world is a feeble substitute for the ancient timeless principles postulated as the First & Final Cause of the space-time world.

So, in recent years, I have developed a personal worldview and God-concept that seems surprisingly close to that portrayed in Whitehead's Process and Reality. One descriptive label for that god-model is PanEnDeism, as proposed by his associate Charles Hartshorne, which describes the deus as both Immanent (Nature) and Transcendent (Super-Nature). :smile:


*1. Spinoza's God was pantheist, a modern version of the God of the Stoics, for whom God was essentially the same as the laws of Nature. And these laws were necessarily completely determined by God.. . . . Nothing is possible but the actions of God, so there are no alternative possibilities to choose between. There is no chance. . . . . Like Spinoza's God, laws of Nature are not something to be prayed to. Spinoza believes that new information is never created. "Nothing new under the Sun.".
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/spinoza/

*2. Is Evolution Creative? :
For example, biological evolution has been described as a creative process , bringing novel living systems into the world.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2427106_Is_Evolution_Creative

VARIETIES OF PHILOSOPHICAL GOD MODELS

creative process — Gnomon

The answer to your quest!

creative process — Gnomon
The answer to your quest! — PoeticUniverse

As a conceptual model, to imagine the physical universe as-if it is a computer simulation*1, is compatible with my Enformationism thesis. But the philosophical question remains : who or what was the Putative Programmer, the Cosmic Coder, the Quantum Quester? In the 21st century, several physicists and mathematicians have written books on related topics*2. I suspect that even 180proof could accept that as a plausible concept, except for the logical necessity for a transcendent Programmer to setup the evolutionary system to compute a cosmos from scratch.

Personally, I find the notion of a spontaneous self-creating self-programming computer cosmos to be implausible. So, I still see a logical need for Whitehead's God ; and even Spinoza's deus sive natura, as long as both conjectures are updated to take account of 21st century cosmology*3. Since classical physics, and Einstein's Relativity, do not compute at Singularity scales, we still need to face the enigma of provenance for Causal Energy & Limiting Laws & queer Quantum Math.

Presumptive Multiverse & Brane hypotheses merely kick the can of genesis down the road. Leaving us with an originless & endless (hence irrational) infinite-regress Tower of Turtles paradox. Therefore, for my philosophical purposes, I simply call that logical paradox : G*D or Programmer or Logos. But I refuse to bow before a Magician who hides behind a curtain of quantum complexity. Instead of blind faith, I say "show me". Hence my ongoing quest for a credible Ontology. :nerd:



*1. Computer Universe :
The idea that the universe could be a vast computer simulation, or a type of digital computation, is a concept explored in the field of digital physics and by some physicists. This perspective suggests that the universe's fundamental structure and evolution might be viewed as a complex computation rather than a purely physical process. . . . .
The simulation hypothesis also raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality and our perception of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+as+computer

*2. Programming the Universe : A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos
Seth Lloyd "Particles not only collide, they compute."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe

*3. Quantum cosmology is the field that attempts to apply quantum mechanical principles to the entire universe, particularly focusing on the quantum nature of the universe's early stages and the Big Bang. It seeks to address questions about the universe's origins and early evolution, where classical general relativity breaks down.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+cosmology

TOWER OF TURTLES with no foundation


Postscript : says there's no physical evidence of a Cosmic Programmer of physics. Would you expect to find DNA of a computer programmer in the code? Experts in coding may claim to see the metaphysical "fingerprints"*4 of a well-known coder in peculiarities of the instruction set : an "explanatory function".

Philosophy is not an empirical science. So it only requires logical plausibility, not physical evidence. Apparently an Immanentist prefers to leave ultimate origins unanswered. That "free lunch" attitude is OK for a Chemist or a Physicist, but not for a Cosmologist or Philosopher. :wink:

*4. Fingerprints of God --- https://youtu.be/DB_APoFu2BA?si=PB3IUOPM27a_j0zi

Even if "the universe is a quantum computer", this does not necessitate it was programmed (or is programmable) or that it has a Babbage-Lovelace/Von Neumann/Turing-like architecture. Clearly, there isn't any evidence of a "transcendent programmer" or explanatory function for one.

Btw, I recommend Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd (2006); also Stephen Wolfram's work on complexity / computation, David Deutsch's work on MWI quantum computing and Carlo Rovelli's work on RQM.

:smirk:

Life's a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows,
Stretched as time between eternal boughs.
Gossamer threads bear the beads that glisten,
Each moment a sequence of instant nows. — PoeticUniverse

I'm currently reading a science book for the general public : The Science of Why We Exist, A history of the universe from the Big Bang to Consciousness. Understandably, the author presents his story in a linear cause & effect fashion --- like a computer program --- instead of a non-linear web of Fate. Ironically, given the title, the book is about the Hows, not the Whys*1.

In his chapter on Beginnings, he says : "Physics is the science that explains why the universe behaves like it does". Yet again, the explanation is a list of mechanical sequential causes (Hows) instead of a single synopsis of an intentional Why. Nevertheless, I found one expression to be suggestive of a Why motive for beginning the evolutionary sequence of our Cosmos. He said : "If physics is the universe's way of turning energy into atoms, then chemistry is the cosmos's way of transforming elements into life". Hence : A Physics = Energy ➜➜➜ Atoms (matter), and B Chemistry = Elements ➜➜➜ Life (animated matter). The arrows indicate the steps & direction of transformation. So the general direction of Evolution is from simple to complex, and from Matter to Mind. But what step came before Physics?

In a marginal note, I extended that programming logic to say : Biology is the cosmos's way of transforming Energy into purposeful behavior : *C* Biology ➜➜➜ Purpose (intentional action). Then, Psychology is the cosmos's way of transforming Energy into Thought : *D* Psychology = Energy ➜➜➜ Mind (intellectual function). This step by step story of evolution begins with an undifferentiated burst of cosmic scale energy (the input), which gradually, over billions of solar cycles, transforms from A generic causation, to B the diversity of things, to *Ω* meaningful ideas (the output??) via the process of differentiation*4. This notion of omni-causal power is amenable to my own theory of EnFormAction : the generic power to transform. Of course all those logical stages along the way are also inter-related by our minds into a cosmic web of whos, whats, wheres & whys. You could say that Evolution is the Cosmos's way of weaving a world of intellectual interest to its questioning elements. :smile:


Note --- Since I lack your talent for rhyme & reason, I thought you might be able to turn the linear logical path of causation into a poem of creative computation. Although, 180proof may cringe at the pre-causal (First Cause) implication, here's my crude attempt :

THE WHYS OF EVOLUTION
The universe behaves as it does,
Not randomly, but because. . . .
It was designed to evolve via telesis*2
'to a world of life, mind and poiesis*3.

It was programmed to transform
Potential into material forms.
By means of Logic, not Accident,
Yet who knows what it meant.

It possessed both Power and Purpose
To evolve a world that slowly goes
From Bang to Thing to Think,
In the space of a god's eye blink.

Yet the motive behind the act
Is concealed in the syntax
Of a world creating algorithm
And an Easter Egg*5 with'em.


*1. "Why" questions seek to understand the reason or cause behind an action or event, while "how" questions focus on the process or method of achieving something. "Why" delves into the purpose and motivation, whereas "how" examines the mechanics or steps involved.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+vs+how

*2. "Telesis" refers to progress that is intentionally planned and directed towards a specific end, often through the application of human intelligence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=telesis

*3. Poiesis : (poetry)In philosophy and literary theory, poiesis refers to the act or process of creation, or the making of something that didn't previously exist.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=poiesis

*4. Differentiation : The act or process of differentiating. 2. Development from the one to the many, the simple to the complex, or the homogeneous to the heterogeneous.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/differentiation

*5. Easter Egg : Computer easter eggs are hidden, undocumented features, messages, or jokes embedded within software or hardware. These "secrets" are often discovered by users who find a way to activate them through specific keystrokes, commands, or actions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=computer+easter+eggs

a poem of creative computation — Gnomon

The cosmos moves by laws precise and deep,
Not random chance that makes the heavens leap,
But designed to evolve through purposeful intent
To worlds where life and mind and art may reap.

The atoms dance in patterns yet unseen,
From simple dust to matters more serene,
A cosmic code inscribed in every part
That guides what is to what has never been.

From single cells to minds that contemplate,
The universe did slowly orchestrate
A symphony of change through time's long flow,
Not random notes, but scores that resonate.

Programmed from void to form with subtle skill,
Potential turns to substance by its will.
By Logic's hand, not Accident's blind touch,
Though what it meant remains a mystery still.

The stars that burn and planets that revolve
Hold secrets of the plan that did involve
Both time and space in grand experiment
Where problems find the means to them resolve.

What force compels the simple to complex?
What wisdom guides the code that doth annex
New forms from old through trials of survival,
A game whose rules the cosmos did perfect?

Perhaps the meaning lies not at the end
But in the ways that all things do transcend
Their former state to reach for something more,
A path on which all beings must depend.

Both Power and Purpose dwell within its core
To shape a world that slowly something more
From Bang to Thing to Think becomes at last,
In time that gods would barely count before.

The hidden hand that writes creation's tale
Leaves traces of intent we might unveil,
If only we could read between the lines
Of DNA and stars that never fail.

The motive for creation's grand design
Lies hidden in algorithmic line,
A world-creating code that carries forth
An Easter Egg of meaning most divine.

creative process — Gnomon
The answer to your quest! — PoeticUniverse

Yes, others have joined in the quest to understand the "creative process" of our evolving universe. Some even liken that Process to a line-by-line computer program, as-if designed by a creative mind. For example, Charles Seife makes use of the computer analogy in his 2007 book Decoding The Universe. But, since he is not a philosopher, he does not attempt to define the logically necessary Programmer, other than a vague reference to Infinity*1. Also, Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe, presents the evidence of coded information in Nature, but leaves the inference of a cosmic coder to the reader's reason. Unlike free-thinking philosophers, professional scientists are limited by their empirical method to physical evidence.

As usual, demands immanent physical "evidence"*2 of the programmer, but all we have access to is the lines of code known as Natural Laws : the syntax of cosmic creation. So, we can follow the trail of evidence back to the scene of the "crime" (Big Bang), and use our detective skills to pin the crime of creation on the transcendent perpetrator. Yet, if the programmer is infinite & indefinite, what kind of evidence would you expect to find : footprints in the mud, or fingerprints on the DNA? For philosophers, logical & rational evidence, interpreted from the physical evidence, should suffice, to prove within reason that the programmer got away with, not murder, but creation of Life from scratch*3. :smile:


*1. “This is the definition of the infinite : it is something that can stay the same size even when you subtract from it.” — Charles Seife
Note --- Since our space-time universe is always increasing in size, his "infinity" must be referring to the concept of an entity Greater Than the physical world. His Cosmic Coder could be described as PanEnDeism : physical universe within meta-physical Mind. Hence, the only physical evidence is the creation itself.

*2. Btw, I recommend Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd (2006); also Stephen Wolfram's work on complexity / computation, David Deutsch's work on MWI quantum computing and Carlo Rovelli's work on RQM. ___excerpt from 's post above
Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently.

*3. "Deus absconditus," a Latin term meaning "hidden God," refers to the Christian theological concept that God's essence is fundamentally unknowable and that God is often perceived as absent or hidden, even when actively present. This idea contrasts with the concept of "Deus revelatus," or the revealed God, as seen in Christ.
Note --- My philosophical thesis is amenable to the hidden god concept, but not the revealed god of Theology

Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently. — Gnomon

Except that your interpretations consist in appeals to ignorance fallacies, as quite a few members have exhaustively pointed out over the years, and my interpretations do not.

NB: Philosophy says, in effect, 'here, we don't know (yet)' and thereby rigorously makes explicit the (current) limits of reason and knowledge whereas in contrast sophistry / theology / pseudo-science deludes itself with woo-of-the-gaps fairytales (e.g. "Enformer", "transcendental programmer", "intelligent designer", etc) which purport to explain (i.e. resolve fundamental mysteries) yet do not explain anything.

The hidden hand that writes creation's tale
Leaves traces of intent we might unveil,
If only we could read between the lines
Of DNA and stars that never fail. — PoeticUniverse

Excerpt from post above :
" Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently. — Gnomon
Except that your interpretations consist in appeals to ignorance fallacies, as quite a few members have exhaustively pointed out over the years, and my interpretations do not."

As usual, 180 alcohol content responds to my philosophical arguments --- in favor of a Cosmic Cause (hidden hand) for the contingent universe we living & thinking beings inhabit --- with ad hominem political attacks : e.g. liberal (logical) inference bad vs conservative (physical) evidence good. I assume he is appalled at the worldwide popularity of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, who frequently punished his chosen people with mass death and deportation. 180 may also have had a bad experience with pedophile priests or knuckle-rapping nuns.

What he calls an “argument from ignorance”*1 is actually a logical inference from circumstantial evidence to a general conclusion, not the ridiculous claim that “absence of evidence is evidence of presence”. Even scientist & skeptic Carl Sagan*2 used the reverse argument to indicate that we should keep an open mind about hypotheses that lack conclusive, “I rest my case”, evidence.

However, this thread is about the “God” of A.N. Whitehead*3, which is essentially what Blaise Pascal called the “God of the philosophers”*4 --- referring to Spinoza. The Philosopher's God doesn't reward or punish anybody; She just creates an ongoing Process of Emergence which inspires philosophers to ask “Why” questions. Spinoza inferred from the evidence of Nature that there must be some universal & eternal substance or essence with infinite attributes, which he, like Whitehead, reasoned to be a “necessary assumption”*3 for understanding the world.

I suspect that Spinoza might agree with Whitehead's god of organism, if he had lived in the 20th century. Both inferred from circumstantial evidence that a universal Substance/Essence was logically necessary to explain the existence, persistence, and consistence of the world we questioning beings inhabit. :nerd:



*1. An appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when someone claims something is true or false simply because there's no evidence for or against it. It's essentially arguing "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" or "absence of evidence is evidence of presence", which is a flawed logical leap.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=argument+from+ignorance+fallacy+examples
Note --- 180 demands physical (material) evidence of a god immanent in the space-time world. But Gnomon presents metaphysical (logical) evidence of the necessity for a transcendent (pre-bang) Cause of the innate Process we know as Evolution.

*2. The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" means that the lack of proof for something doesn't necessarily mean that the thing doesn't exist. It's often attributed to Carl Sagan, who famously stated that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This means that the absence of evidence for a hypothesis doesn't automatically prove that the hypothesis is false.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=absence+of+evidence+is+evidence+of+presence

*3. Whitehead's conception of God, articulated in his philosophy of process and organism, is not presented as a proof of God's existence in the traditional sense, but rather as a necessary assumption for understanding the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+evidence+for+god

*4. The phrase "not the God of the philosophers" often refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as distinguished from the God of philosophical inquiry. Blaise Pascal famously used this distinction, highlighting a personal, relational God rather than a purely abstract or logical one. Some interpret this as a contrast between a God who is part of religious belief systems and a God who is understood through reason and logic, often portrayed as more impersonal.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=not+the+god+of+the+philosophers

*5. Evidence for universal Substance : Spinoza has not proved but assumed that God is an - or rather the - existing substance.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51293/spinozas-proof-of-god
Note --- Ironically, 180proof's favorite philosopher didn't present physical evidence for his universal Substance. Instead, the natural world was taken for granted as beyond argument, and the God Substance was assumed as a logically necessary Axiom.

As usual, 180 alcohol content responds to my philosophical arguments --- in favor of a Cosmic Cause (hidden hand) for the contingent universe we living & thinking beings inhabit --- with ad hominem political attacks : e.g. liberal (logical) inference bad vs conservative (physical) evidence good. I assume he is appalled at the worldwide popularity of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, who frequently punished his chosen people with mass death and deportation. 180 may also have had a bad experience with pedophile priests or knuckle-rapping nuns. — Gnomon

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Like Trump, your fatuous accusations are confessions, Gnomon – I must've struck a raw nerve (i.e. truth hurts! :sweat:) with my last post ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/984104 :up:

She just creates an ongoing Process of Emergence — Gnomon

She just creates an ongoing Process of Emergence — Gnomon

The video begins with a wardrobe malfunction, and concludes with a philosophical malfunction. If you ignore the progression of the Evolutionary Process, and assume it is totally random, then the Pale Blue Dot in the cosmic blackboard "should not exist". We're not playing darts here, but from the perspective of the only sentient beings we know, that "dot" is in the center of the target. How did we get here from the propulsive Singularity? :joke:

ONE SMALL PLANET DEFIES THE ODDS


PS___ I'm skeptical of some of the interpretations of "coincidences" in the video. But I can agree that Evolution has hit a lot of coincidences on the nose.