There is a lot of confusion (one might say 'cross-pollination') between metaphysics as a sub-discipline within philosophy, and metaphysics as a publishing-industry catch-all for squishier occult interests. — Jack-N

:up: Absolutely correct. 'Metaphysics' is shorthand for 'anything vaguely spiritual'. Accordingly most criticism is criticism of 'anything I think is vaguely spiritual (and don't like).' This is further complicated by the generally anti-religion undercurrent in secular culture (which a lot of the time really has no idea what it's negating.)

I think discussion of metaphysics in philosophy ought to be oriented with respect to Aristotle - after all, the term was invented in relation to his writing. That doesn't mean slavishly worshipping Aristotle as the supreme philosopher (as the medievals tended to do) but at least developing some understanding of the lexicon and general outlook of metaphysics in the mainstream philosophical tradition. Otherwise, it invariably veers off into homespun syncretism, on the one hand, or uninformed ridicule, on the other.

Substance is what has properties, so you can't really describe it by referring to what properties it has. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aristotle found it difficult to pin down "substance" to a single definition, so he gave two candidates : Platonic "Form" and Physical "Matter". Material substance is what our senses are attuned to. But Form (information) as a substance is detected only by our sixth sense of Reason (pattern recognition).

" Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of. ... "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

So, when I asked what substance Matter is made of, I was not referring to its physical substance, but to its formal substance : the cause of physical properties. In my personal Theory of Everything, I call that essence of both Matter and Energy "EnFormAction" : the power to enform. It's a simple concept, but so far from conventional scientific understanding, that it requires lots of explanation to dispel knee-jerk reactions. It's a secular theory that combines ancient philosophical & religious notions (First Cause, Divine Will) with cutting-edge science (Information Theory, Quantum Mechanics).

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

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if a thing has physical existence, there is a cause of its existence, what you call "the cause of physical properties". After all, having physical properties is the same as having physical existence. This cause is what you call EnFormAction.

I call that essence of both Matter and Energy "EnFormAction" : the power to enform. It's a simple concept, but so far from conventional scientific understanding, that it requires lots of explanation to dispel knee-jerk reactions. It's a secular theory that combines ancient philosophical & religious notions (First Cause, Divine Will) with cutting-edge science (Information Theory, Quantum Mechanics). — Gnomon

Interesting. But how do you allow for intelligence? What is it that recognises concepts? And what are concepts? Is that intelligence something you think is a product of evolution?

Aristotle found it difficult to pin down "substance" to a single definition, so he gave two candidates : Platonic "Form" and Physical "Matter". Material substance is what our senses are attuned to. But Form (information) as a substance is detected only by our sixth sense of Reason (pattern recognition). — Gnomon

One point of caution is that the Aristotelian term that was translated as 'substance' was Ousia which is nothing like 'substance' in the every day sense.

The term οὐσία is an Ancient Greek noun, formed on the feminine present participle of the verb εἰμί, eimí, i.e., "to be, I am". In Latin, it was translated as essentia or substantia.

If ousia doesn't refer to 'a' being, it's because it refers to the 'concept of man' rather than 'this or that man'. But again, it's nothing like 'substance' in the modern sense, nor is it anything like the modern conception of matter.

Personally, I'm comfortable with A. W. Moore's take on it, from his book, The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: "Metaphysics is the most general attempt to make sense of things." — Jack-N

Thanks for that!Excellent. :smile:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if a thing has physical existence, there is a cause of its existence, what you call "the cause of physical properties". After all, having physical properties is the same as having physical existence. This cause is what you call EnFormAction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. In the Enformationism thesis, the essence of EnFormAction is conditional existence : to be or not to be. In digital Information, the essence of meaningful form is 1 or 0, something or nothing. So, the First Cause of EnFormAction (creative power or energy) is BEING (the power to be; infinite potential). BEING (which I call G*D) is eternal, but non-physical. Physical beings are limited to space-time. Hence, back to digital information, 0 is non-physical potential, and 1 is physical actual. Likewise, BEING is potential (non-physical; meta-physical) and EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual : 0 into 1.

Now, is that clear as mud? The thesis leads up to this conclusion gradually, so it should make more sense in the end. A simple analogy is a small battery in an electrical device. It is rated at 1.5 volts. But that potential voltage has no properties until it is actualized by completing a circuit from potential to actual and back; from nothing to something and back to no-thing (no property). The energy produced by the battery has no properties itself, except for sensible changes in the material through which it flows : heat, light, communication, etc.

PS__Although I refer to BEING as G*D, to give it a common reference point, this philosophical thesis is intended to be scientific instead of religious.

Interesting. But how do you allow for intelligence? What is it that recognises concepts? And what are concepts? Is that intelligence something you think is a product of evolution? — Wayfarer

Yes. As a result of the work by EnFormAction, Information (meaning) is inherent in matter. This is a form of ancient Panpsychism, except that consciousness emerges gradually in the process of evolution. Basic elements of matter have information content, but are not conscious in the sense that more highly-evolved animals are. In evolutionary terms, Intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Unlike most animals though, Human intelligence has learned to change its environmental circumstance for its own benefit, by creating Culture from Nature.

As the First Cause of everything in the world, BEING must have the potential for intelligence and consciousness, but may have no actual intelligence until realized in space & time.

The fundamental Concept is the difference between something and nothing, 1 or 0, as in the basic Bit of computer information. All other concepts are multiples of 1s and 0s.

One point of caution is that the Aristotelian term that was translated as 'substance' was Ousia which is nothing like 'substance' in the every day sense. — Wayfarer

Yes. I use the term "substance" (ousia) in the sense of spiritual essence rather than material stuff.

If ousia doesn't refer to 'a' being, it's because it refers to the 'concept of man' rather than 'this or that man'. But again, it's nothing like 'substance' in the modern sense, nor is it anything like the modern conception of matter. — Wayfarer

In the Bible, ousia was typically used to mean "spirit" in the sense of the non-physical essence of a person. In my thesis, I try to avoid the religious baggage of "spirit" by substituting "self" or "self-concept". It's the pattern of information that defines a person : his Platonic Form.

PS__Here's an analogy to make sense of "ousia" as information. In Star Trek, the Transporter scans a human body or an object, and converts its constituent information into a stream of data (1s & 0s) that it beams to a different location, where it transforms the information back into matter as a replica of the original. That abstract data is equivalent to the "soul" (spirit or essence) of the person. Presumably, the material for the body is sourced locally. A philosophical problem with the sci-fi Transporter that has been discussed is this : "is the reformed replica the same person, or a clone?" Of course in non-fiction Nature, we assume that there is only one unique Form (soul) of a person. So, no doppelgangers.

As a result of the work by EnFormAction, Information (meaning) is inherent in matter. This is a form of ancient Panpsychism, except that consciousness emerges gradually in the process of evolution. — Gnomon

'Information' and 'meaning' differ in significant ways. People nowadays will refer to 'information' as if it is a fundamental category in its own right, like 'mind' or 'matter'. But the problem is, the word itself is polysemic, meaning different things in different contexts. It's not like a metaphysical simple.

And 'consciousness gradually emerging in the process of evolution' is simply mainstream biology. In one sense, it's obviously true, in that cognitive capacities have clearly evolved over time. But I think the philosophical issue suggested by classical metaphysics is more like this: that the rational intelligence (nous) is capable of recognising meaning, value and purpose in the abstract. And that, I don't think, is really addressed by evolutionary theory as such. Put another way - human mental capacities have clearly evolved, but when they have evolved to the point of reason, language and abstraction, then they in some sense transcend the biological. Which is something that most modern philosophy has trouble recognising.

Here's an analogy to make sense of "ousia" as information. In Star Trek, the Transporter scans a human body or an object, and converts its constituent information into a stream of data (1s & 0s) that it beams to a different location, where it transforms the information back into matter as a replica of the original. That abstract data is equivalent to the "soul" (spirit or essence) of the person. — Gnomon

Lawrence Krauss became famous for a book called The Physics of Star Trek in the mid-nineties, which analysed how much physical data you would have to convert to 'beam Scotty up'. My vague memory of it was that to fully convert all of the specifications for a single individual into binary code would take a stack of hard drives larger than the known universe. (Or was it solar system?? Of course, technology has advanced since then, but still....)

But in any case, the model you're suggesting is still basically physicalist, i.e., it equates meaning and intelligence with information that can be digitally encoded. But in my view, the problem with this is that the real nature of the mind (or 'being') is not something objectively specifiable. It never appears to as as an object, but is always 'that which knows', as the subject of experience. This is not something that is made explicit in Greek philosophy, but it is spelled out in the Upanisads.

Whereas naturalism starts from the assumption that it is 'the particular', i.e. the existing object, that is real, and then tries to work back to its fundamental principles by reducing it to elements and so forth. — Wayfarer

I understand 'naturalism' as epistemologically - methodologically - assuming that 'the natural world' can be intelligibly explained without recourse to, or by excluding, any non/supernatural entities, forces, agencies, etc independent of any specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations.

So, the First Cause of EnFormAction (creative power or energy) is BEING (the power to be; infinite potential). BEING (which I call G*D) is eternal, but non-physical. Physical beings are limited to space-time. Hence, back to digital information, 0 is non-physical potential, and 1 is physical actual. Likewise, BEING is potential (non-physical; meta-physical) and EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual : 0 into 1. — Gnomon

It appears like there is inconsistency here. You say that the first cause of EnFormAction is infinite potential. But don't you recognize that infinite potential could not contain any actuality, and therefore could not be a cause of anything? But then you say that EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual. Therefore it must be something actual, and also separate from infinite potential, which you call BEING.

In Aristotelian metaphysics, infinite potential is impossible, for the very reason that it would exclude any actuality, and therefore not be able to actualize anything. So "infinite potential" is really just incoherent nonsense, or a self-contradicting concept. This means that you need to change your description of BEING, because infinite potential could not be the cause of EnFormAction, and instead alter your inquiry to find a description for the cause of potential (BEING).

A simple analogy is a small battery in an electrical device. It is rated at 1.5 volts. But that potential voltage has no properties until it is actualized by completing a circuit from potential to actual and back; from nothing to something and back to no-thing (no property). The energy produced by the battery has no properties itself, except for sensible changes in the material through which it flows : heat, light, communication, etc. — Gnomon

You cannot really say that the potential of the battery has no properties because you have already defined it as 1.5 volts. This is the problem which arises if one tries to make sense of "infinite potential". Any 'real' potential is already limited, or restricted by the physical actualities which provide for its existence. The physical actuality of the battery provides for its potential, so that potential is restricted by those properties. Because any 'real' potential is limited in this way, it doesn't make any sense to speak of unlimited, or infinite potential. People often do speak of infinite potential though, as you just did, but Aristotle showed how this is purely imaginary, and cannot be substantiated by anything real. And it is important to note that it is not just the case that nothing real has been found to support the concept of infinite potential, and might be found in the future, it is the case that it is impossible for anything real to support the concept. Because it is impossible that there could be substance to the concept, the concept has no metaphysical application, it has absolutely no bearing on reality, and therefore must be rejected by metaphysicians.

Lawrence Krauss became famous for a book called The Physics of Star Trek in the mid-nineties, which analysed how much physical data you would have to convert to 'beam Scotty up'. My vague memory of it was that to fully convert all of the specifications for a single individual into binary code would take a stack of hard drives larger than the known universe. (Or was it solar system?? Of course, technology has advanced since then, but still....) — Wayfarer

That was before PS3 and the 'Cell' processor, therefore old information. The size of these things has really shrunk.

I understand 'naturalism' as epistemologically - methodologically - assuming that 'the natural world' can be intelligibly explained without recourse to, or excluding, any non/supernatural entities, forces, agencies, etc independent of any specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations. — 180 Proof

Is there actually people who believe that the natural world could be explained without metaphysical considerations? I haven't seen anyone even attempt at such an explanation, though I respect the fact that some people might claim that it could be done, without actually trying. But do they really believe this? Even Stephen Hawking turns to metaphysics. Do you know anyone who's actually tried to explain the natural world without recourse to metaphysics?

Do you know anyone who's actually tried to explain the natural world without recourse to metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, there's not way to explain it without implicit or explicit metaphysics? Physicalism? well, it's right there. Natural laws? again right there

'Information' and 'meaning' differ in significant ways. People nowadays will refer to 'information' as if it is a fundamental category in its own right, like 'mind' or 'matter'. But the problem is, the word itself is polysemic, meaning different things in different contexts. It's not like a metaphysical simple. — Wayfarer

Yes. Those words, like most language, can be ambiguous. But as a "metaphysical simple" I'd use the term "information" in the sense of the basic bit of understanding or meaning : 1 or 0; is or ain't; existing or non-existing; being or non-being. Every other bit or byte of knowledge is built upon that fundamental categorical distinction. It's the "difference that makes a difference".

Claude Shannon separated the traditional definition of "information" from meaning-in-a-mind (knowledge) because -- as an engineer, not a philosopher -- he was focused on the carrier-of-information, instead of the content : meaning.

human mental capacities have clearly evolved, but when they have evolved to the point of reason, language and abstraction, then they in some sense transcend the biological. Which is something that most modern philosophy has trouble recognising. — Wayfarer

In my concept of evolution -- not Intelligent Design, but Intelligent Evolution -- the advent of human mind signaled a transition from Nature to Culture. Human culture advances at a much more rapid pace than biological evolution. But I refer to it as just another "Phase Change" instead of a special miracle.

Mainstream philosophers still seem to have physics envy. But quite a few philosophers and scientists are returning to the roots of Natural Philosophy, by investigating some ancient notions rejected by materialist science : Panpsychism, Idealism, Elan Vital, etc. I have reviewed several of those in my blog. The problem is that acknowledging the growing power of the collective mind can be twisted into a justification for ancient notions of mind-over-matter magic. By emphasizing mundane Information rather than exotic concepts of Consciousness (souls; ghosts), I try to avoid such unwarranted implications.

But in any case, the model you're suggesting is still basically physicalist, i.e., it equates meaning and intelligence with information that can be digitally encoded. — Wayfarer

The Star Trek analogy was indeed a "physicalist" model of the mind and the soul. That's where all sci-fi stories of uploading minds into computers go wrong. They assume the information is recorded in the brain like data on a hard drive. Yet data is just meaningless abstractions until interpreted by a mind.

But my concept of Information is Idealist. It's true that mental information can be encoded as symbols into a computer, but the meaning of those symbols is not transmitted. Instead, the recipient is assumed to already know their meaning. Any new knowledge they receive is by inference in the mind of the recipient. Unlike, physical things, metaphysical Information is something I can give away, and still have it. The medium is not the message.

But don't you recognize that infinite potential could not contain any actuality, and therefore could not be a cause of anything? — Metaphysician Undercover

You are missing the power of potential. If a potential is not capable of causing anything, it's not potential, it's impotent. By definition, the cause of our world possessed the creative power to cause a world to exist. Whether the First Cause was a god or an infinite regression of universes, it necessarily possessed the power to actualize something new that didn't exist before. In my thesis, infinite BEING is omnipotential, but the existence of our universe was conditional. A choice was required. An intention was enforced. I know nothing about infinity, except what Logic mandates.

In the battery example. Voltage (potential) doesn't do any work. It's Amperage that causes change. But without the voltage, there would be no amperage. Without BEING, there would be no beings.

You cannot really say that the potential of the battery has no properties because you have already defined it as 1.5 volts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Voltage is not a property, it's a prediction.

Because any 'real' potential is limited in this way, it doesn't make any sense to speak of unlimited, or infinite potential. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Potential I'm talking about is not Real, it's Ideal. Nothing in reality is infinite. Infinity and Eternity are unlimited, by definition. BEING is not real. G*D is not real. Metaphysics is not real. FORMS are not real. They are all Ideal. Hence, not restricted by the laws of physics.

Do you know anyone who's actually tried to explain the natural world without recourse to metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover

I rest my case. :smile:

quite a few philosophers and scientists are returning to the roots of Natural Philosophy, by investigating some ancient notions rejected by materialist science : Panpsychism, Idealism, Elan Vital, etc. — Gnomon

Agree. There was a very interesting poster here previously, seems to have stopped posting, apokrisis. He's an expert in biosemiotics, and sometimes mentioned Claude Shannon.

But one point about Shannon's work, is that it was concerned with a very specific problem, namely, the transmission of bits across electronic media - that's why his work is fundamental to data compression and networking. But the extent to which the kind of information processing that Shannon is talking about, relates to 'meaning' in the more abstract sense, is still an open question in my view. There was also a famous comment by Norbert Wiener, who founded cybernetics, along the lines that 'information is information, it is not matter or energy'. All of which is true but it's still unclear what information means in a general sense. To me it seems that information is only structured to any significant degree in living beings and in minds, and I find that significant. I'm generally sympathetic to your approach, but to me, the underlying problem of modern philosophy is that it narrows its scope to what can be objectified (i.e. treated as an object and quantified). That's why it has such enormous technological power, on the one hand, but on the other hand, it also tends to treat human beings as objects, which is intrinsically de-humanising.

BEING is not real. G*D is not real. Metaphysics is not real. FORMS are not real. They are all Ideal. Hence, not restricted by the laws of physics. — Gnomon

I distinguish what is real from what (merely) exists. The phenomenal domain comprises existing things, but 'existence' itself is always a combination of the real and the unreal. Whereas forms, numbers etc are real but not existent - they don't have to exist, things do the hard work of existing.

Back later.

But then you say that EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual. Therefore it must be something actual, and also separate from infinite potential, which you call BEING. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. BEING (G*D) is infinite potential, and is not real. But EnFormAction is the power of G*D in the world, and is real in the same sense that Energy is real. As a historical analogy, EFA is similar to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Jehovah doesn't have to come down to Earth to enforce his Will. Instead, he sends his Spirit to do the job. It's just a metaphor. Don't take it too literally.

I think the ancients were smart people trying to understand how and why the world works as it does. In the pre-scientific ages, supernatural gods were plausible concepts to explain the mysterious causes of natural events. Today, we call those causes by the name of Energy and Forces. They obviously have effects in the real world, but we know them only by their works, not as ding an sich.

I'm still grasping for the hows & whys, but I don't have a divine revelation to set me straight. So, I use the tools of fallible human philosophy and science. :cool:

read these two paragraphs. Substitute 'to exist' for 'to be'.

Today, we call those causes by the name of Energy and Forces. They obviously have effects in the real world, but we know them only by their works, — Gnomon

No. The ancients meant something different to what we mean by 'cause' - they meant in a broader 'the reason why things exist'. Modern thinking only understands it terms of material and efficient causes but has no sense of reason in the sense of 'telos'. So 'the first cause' is not 'first in a temporal series' but 'what must first be, in order than anything else is'. Modern science will never reach that, because it deals only in the domain of appearances and natural regularities.

You are missing the power of potential. If a potential is not capable of causing anything, it's not potential, it's impotent. — Gnomon

I think you are twisting the distinction between actual and potential. Do you accept this division? If so, do you see that it is necessary for a cause to be actual? How can you say that a potential can cause something if you uphold the distinction between potential and actual and see that an act is required as a cause?

By definition, the cause of our world possessed the creative power to cause a world to exist. — Gnomon

Sure, but do you see that possessing the power to cause a world to exist is different from actually causing the world to exist? I possess the power to do all sorts of different things, but I don't necessarily do them. That's the point of contingent existence, 'potential' always refers to a multitude of possibilities, but the fact that one thing is actualized rather than some other possibility is only explained by causation. And, the cause must be something actual. So, we cannot account for the existence of our world, simply by saying that there was something which had that creative capacity, we need to also account for how that particular creative capacity was actualized.

Voltage is not a property, it's a prediction. — Gnomon

No, voltage is a description, not a prediction. According to Wikipedia it is the difference in electric potential between two points.

In short, I think metaphysical inquiries involve claims about what is and what isn't and the nature of these "things." I've never thought of metaphysics and ontology as different things. They seem one and the same to me.

Is there actually people who believe that the natural world could be explained without metaphysical considerations? [ ... ] Do you know anyone who's actually tried to explain the natural world without recourse to metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've neither claimed nor implied that I or anyone else explains anything "without metaphysical considerations"; only that I understand naturalism consisting of the working assumption that no specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations are required to explain the natural world.

My understanding may be erroneous or naturalists (e.g. scientists) may misunderstand what they are doing. Or maybe you, MU, (A) missed the context of my statement as a reply to Wayfarer (quoted in my post) & (B) discounted the proximity of non/supernatural entities, forces, agencies to specific ontology & explicitly metaphysical considerations in the sentence, the latter alluding to the former; and thereby misread my meaning.

Do you consider, for instance, that merely assuming 'the natural world is explainable' is a "recourse to metaphysics"?

I understand naturalism consisting of the working assumption that no specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations are required to explain the natural world. — 180 Proof

I agree that 'methodological naturalism' is a perfectly sound working hypothesis, but where its limitations show up, is when it ventures into metaphysics, like it does in the many controversies over multiverses and parallel worlds in physics. Likewise there are many problematical questions arising from evolutionary biology in respect of providing an account of the faculty of reason and other human attributes, where neo-darwinism often amounts to a kind of crude reductionism; which is not at all to disparage evolutionary biology in its field of application, viz, the evolution of species.

All around us, in fact, scientific hypotheses are frequently imbued with a metaphysical significance they don't have; hence the oft-quoted (but rarely observed) maxim from Wittgenstein, 'that of which we cannot speak....' .

Do you consider, for instance, that merely assuming 'the natural world is explainable' is a "recourse to metaphysics"? — 180 Proof

Won't the answer be a metaphysical statement? If you're asking what kind of reflection is required to understand the world, then I think it would be.

If you're just asking how one uses the word "metaphysics" then it's a linguistic question.

I've neither claimed nor implied that I or anyone else explains anything "without metaphysical considerations"; only that I understand naturalism consisting of the working assumption that no specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations are required to explain the natural world. — 180 Proof

So then naturalism is not tied to physicalism.

Do you consider, for instance, that merely assuming 'the natural world is explainable' is a "recourse to metaphysics"? — 180 Proof

Yes, I think that would be a metaphysical assumption. Especially, but not only, if it means in a complete sense or all parts of the natural world or all natural phenomena.

recent discussions, it has become clear to me that I have no clear idea of what metaphysics is. — Pattern-chaser

One of the coolest answers is Heidegger's: look around you now and in your mind, place a backdrop of nothingness behind it all.

The outcome (for me) is a sense of direct contact with Being, not as an abstraction or a property of objects, but it's like the volume is turned up on the here and now. I would advise against doing this in a situation where you're miserable. Go somewhere awesome and do it.

<---wonders how we're still discussing this when he gave the definition a couple pages ago.

along the lines that 'information is information, it is not matter or energy'. — Wayfarer

Generic Information is multi-faceted and hard to pin down to one thing. In Macro Physics, energy and information are not usually equated. But in Quantum Physics the relationship is a necessary conclusion. En-Form-Action is potential for a change in form. Energy is also the potential for change. But EFA is a metaphysical concept, while Energy is a physical concept. A Quantum Field (potential or virtual particles) is a metaphysical concept that exists only in a mathematical sense. But when a real particle appears from empty space, a unit of (vacuum) energy is assumed to have been expended. Quantum language is so metaphorical and vacuous that it seems paradoxical.
Information = Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

All of which is true but it's still unclear what information means in a general sense. To me it seems that information is only structured to any significant degree in living beings and in minds, and I find that significant. — Wayfarer

There are two meanings for the word "structure". For most folks it's the physical posts & beams that a building is made of. But, for an engineer, the structure is a diagram of forces and reactions (vectors). Information is both concrete structure (things) and abstract structure (relationships between things).
Generic Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I distinguish what is real from what (merely) exists. The phenomenal domain comprises existing things, but 'existence' itself is always a combination of the real and the unreal. Whereas forms, numbers etc are real but not existent - they don't have to exist, things do the hard work of existing. — Wayfarer

In my list of examples -- "BEING is not real. G*D is not real. Metaphysics is not real. FORMS are not real. They are all Ideal" -- the distinction between Real & Ideal is Concrete vs Abstract and Actual vs Potential. So G*D is not a real being (thing), but the ideal state of BEING. Ideal objects "exist" only in minds, not in matter.