In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream."

Perhaps it is simply due to the "human condition", the allusive 'nature of man' - a condition or nature that philosophy can do nothing about. But, surely, this human condition, this nature of man, has changed in the last 2,600 years - during the time philosophy has contributed to human understanding and knowledge - and if it can change it could change to a better world, not so?

Perhaps it is unfair or wrong to blame philosophy for these long standing problems. It would make more sense to blame politics - "The only result I see from politics are a world in which ..." But then, is politics not a result of philosophy? Case in point, the philosophy of Karl Marx that lead to the most devastating politics in our world. Who nows where post-modernism or meta-modernism will end up? A better world? Not if one consider the track record of philosophy.

Then, perhaps, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a valid point:"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." But if I look in the light of the torch of the scientists, into the future, I see at least two major dangers: The environmental disaster we humans are bringing over ourselves, fuelled by the consequential efforts of science => engineering => technology => wealth and The danger posed by artificial intelligence. This artificial intelligence that only require two more capabilities in order to take over our world, abstract thought and survival.

What then? If neither philosophy nor politics nor science could solve this human condition, this nature of man, who can? Surely not religion - this human endeavour has been around even longer than philosophy!

Please consider an alternative foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved. A foundation that is not based on philosophy, religion, politics or science. A foundation based on a fundamental understanding of systems, a definition of a system from first principles. A definition that provides for a classifications of systems that provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies and which solve the demarcation problem. An understanding that clearly shows that the emergence of wealth preceded the evolution of modern Homo sapiens.

Please consider an alternative foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved. A foundation that is not based on philosophy, religion, politics or science. A foundation based on a fundamental understanding of systems, a definition of a system from first principles. A definition that provides for a classifications of systems that provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies and which solve the demarcation problem. An understanding that clearly shows that the emergence of wealth preceded the evolution of modern Homo sapiens. — Pieter R van Wyk

You claim to offer a foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved and then proceed to describe this foundation in an obfuscating manner.

Snake oil salesmen have always been part and parcel of humanity's problems.

Well, we don't know that for sure. Who could say? Was the first revolutionary invention (incandescent lighting, refrigeration, etc.) spoken in perfect completion and detail at the moment of it's conception? Were you? Were any of us? No, sometimes things develop into something that an observer would never imagine.

So why not let it? Is this not after all, one if not the only key things that sets us apart from the animals beneath us?

You still owe me a chess re-match, by the way. :grin:

You claim to offer a foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved and then proceed to describe this foundation in an obfuscating manner. — praxis

You certainly seem to be obfuscated, my foundation is an understanding of systems (something, it would seem, you have no understanding of), defined from first principles - founded on the "... basic, seminal, fundamental, primordial truth of the existence of physical things ... If we cannot agree on this, that physical things exist in fact; our only option would be somewhere between the philosophical areas ... called nihilism and fatalism. And, for sure, solutions to our problems cannot and will not be found in these areas." p9 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence - words in italic (from the quote) is defined unambiguously!

Snake oil salesmen have always been part and parcel of humanity's problems. — praxis

So for philosophers with their heads in the sand

I’m notably no closer to understanding this foundation from which solutions to humanity’s problems might be found.

Don’t you believe that it would be good if I did understand it?

Is it that only an elite class of people are capable of understand it?

Also, you say that solutions might be found from this foundation. Aren’t humanity’s problems important enough to present a foundation that you have more confidence in?

You certainly seem to be obfuscated, my foundation is an understanding of systems (something, it would seem, you have no understanding of), defined from first principles - founded on the "... basic, seminal, fundamental, primordial truth of the existence of physical things ... If we cannot agree on this, that physical things exist in fact; our only option would be somewhere between the philosophical areas ... called nihilism and fatalism. And, for sure, solutions to our problems cannot and will not be found in these areas." p9 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence - words in italic (from the quote) is defined unambiguously! — Pieter R van Wyk

Empty words. You have presented next to nothing.

Author: I have all the answers!
Forum Members: Okay. Tell us.
Author: Here is a quote from my book that basically shows I am a physical realist.
Me: So what? You have simply shown a philosophical stance and yet also insinuate that philosophy is not what you are doing.

People have been patient here. You have given nothing but a poor attempt to sell a book - which frankly I would not read even if you paid me at this point given your inability to engage in a genuine and frank manner (ironic given that you ultimately claim to do this in 'plain English').

This thread is dead to me if the next few response actually present something.

Maybe participating in another thread would help you to reveal your ideas? Either way, it is fun to jump into other discussions and see what other people think in general.

GL

Welcome to the forum Pieter! You might look at the current world and think philosophy has done nothing to fix it, but the reality is the world of today is a far better place than it was even 300 years ago. The important part is to understand what philosophy actually is to understand its contributions.

I find it easiest to start with science. Science starts with a hypothesis, which is a set of known words, and posits a conclusion. We then test against those words and conclusions to see what outcome we get.

Philosophy is the creation of logical words that we can put together to test in science. "Gravity" at one time was not a word. "What if everything in the world is constantly pulling on everything else in the world?" That's a philosophy. You piece together a hypothesis. Then you test it.

Philosophy that is successful integrates into a culture and the sciences. The idea of a 'human right' was proposed as a philosophical concept and is agreed upon by many cultures as defacto. "Gender ideology" I would argue is still a philosophy, and a particularly bad one at that.

So why is philosophy seen as dead? Because it has generally been subsumed into other areas that have science and specialized learning behind them. Can you wax philosophically about the mind without keeping up with the current science of the human brain? Not effectively, no. Philosophy is ironically an independent field of study that eliminates itself over time as it succeeds. There really aren't many problems left that do not already have an associated field. I would argue that AI involves a massive amount of philosophy, but you also need to understand how it works to construct something that you can test.

I argue that there are only a few areas of pure philosophy that are still left.

God, knowledge, ethics, and art. Even then, there are specialty fields and discoveries that one must be aware of it adequately approach these. Its just that none of these areas of philosophy have become objective fields yet. The day that they do, they will no longer belong to 'philosophy' but become a science.

The fact that there's not much left shows how much philosophy has already accomplished. Unfortunately many people come into philosophy and try to make a career out of its failures. The preservation of old philosophy and its study is really just an academic pass time at best, and often times just a fun exercise in creativity and logic if one wants to tackle the subjects in seriousness. There are a few people who genuinely try to push the field forward, but its a hard road. I have two papers here that attempt to tackle knowledge and ethics from a unique venue, so if you're interested in exploring something that has not been ascertained by society as 'true or false', you might enjoy the read.

Knowledge as context
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context

A proposed start for an objective morality
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Maybe you'll enjoy them and find some value. :)

Don’t you believe that it would be good if I did understand it? — praxis

It would be awesome if you could understand it - I am looking for the "fatal flaw" in my understanding.

Is it that only an elite class of people are capable of understand (sic) it? — praxis

I am not sure what you mean by "elite class", but if my editor could understand it - although she had some difficulty with the metamathematics - I am pretty sure most members on this forum is capable of understanding it.

Also, you say that solutions might be found from this foundation. Aren’t humanity’s problems important enough to present a foundation that you have more confidence in? — praxis

Absolutely!

I have confidence in my work but it needs to be stress-tested. That is why I am looking for an "astute reader" that could help me find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning. The statement that I posted in my introduction is only part of my problem statement, in an effort to solicit some stress-testing of my work.

From the responses I received in this conversation I conclude that my problem statement is a valid problem - unsolved by 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour.

... which frankly I would not read even if you paid me at this point ... — I like sushi

No problem - I am trying to find a reader that could think outside the box and with the capability of understanding what I have written and (most importantly) assist me to find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning.

A Bedouin was caught in a box canyon by a desert lion. He started to pray: Allah, if you are on the side of the lion, let him kill me quickly so that I do not suffer too much. If you are on my side let me kill the lion quickly before he hurts me too much. But if you are on no one's side - stand aside because here is a big fight on its way.

I am like this Bedouin.

Thank you for your welcome, I do appreciate it.

I do not have any issue with the substantial contribution that philosophy has made on the progress of humanity - there is no denying this. My problem is with the established fact that through this 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to solve the most pressing problems of humanity. Problems like poverty and war. Nor can philosophy suggest any solution to the more modern problems like the danger posed by artificial intelligence and human's efforts to destroy our planet with a self inflicted environmental disaster. "The bottom line is if we cannot find an agreed upon answer to the question: Why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable? Then systems of artificial intelligence will surpass humanity, and our human ideals of Liberte, egalite, fraternite will not exist anymore. It will only be the history of humankind." p2 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles, but then; in a quest that lasted more than 100 years, such a general systems theory has not been found.

I claim:

"Unless a fatal flaw is uncovered, this understanding (fully described in this discourse) is not only a valid systems theory but also a valid theory of everything." p227 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

I neither have a problem with an initial response to this claim that I must be smoking some really good s#@t or be totally off my rocker. All I am looking for is one fatal flaw in my reasoning - a flaw that would render my theory inconsistent or without utility. Also, If I am merely daydreaming under the influence of some really good s#@t, then surely a fatal flaw will stand out like a sore thumb.

The only thing that I ask from any "astute reader" is an agreement on the perception of the conditional truth that physical things (the things consisting of mass or energy) exist. All my understanding follows from this assumption.

With all due respect to philosophy and the members of this forum: If philosophy could not arrive at a better understanding of "human nature", an understanding that would render a better chance for solving humanity's problems, then it is high time that we consider a different understanding. An understanding that provides a valid speculation on the existence of God, a valid definition of knowledge, an understanding that: ethics, justice, human rights, value, human action, ... are merely political rhetoric and art is simply "A deliberate transformation of the feelings and emotions of the artist (the life form making the art) into a physical form." p96 How I understand Things. The Logic of Existence

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes, I did that in the link for a proposed objective morality. I have yet to have anybody rationally critique its first premise conclusions that the necessary base of any possible objective morality that is real, must note that existence is preferable to non-existence. From there I build a theory which is absolutely a work in progress, but I can't get anybody to go deeper than the initial premise because most just want to talk about human morality. My morality starts as 'existential morality' which eventually builds up to human morality.

The only thing that I ask from any "astute reader" is an agreement on the perception of the conditional truth that physical things (the things consisting of mass or energy) exist. All my understanding follows from this assumption. — Pieter R van Wyk

It is perfectly fine to insist on any starting conversation "We are going to assume X is true." If anyone says, "But I don't believe X is true" then you simply note that is not the scope of the conversation and that the discussion is IF X is true. Anyone who does not agree to this can be ignored in their responses.

If philosophy could not arrive at a better understanding of "human nature", an understanding that would render a better chance for solving humanity's problems, then it is high time that we consider a different understanding. — Pieter R van Wyk

Correct. Its why I entered into the field. Its what I've focused on for years. But most people in this field are not interested in it. They want to safely stay in the things they are familiar with as scholars. They want to play word games or tell you what THEY think instead of listening to and actually dissecting your ideas. Or worst of all, just troll your thread.

I am very interested in talking about things besides long dead philosophies of the past that truly have no further relevance or solutions. If you are interested in seeing my takes on the issues, feel free to read my posts and comment in them. If you have your own take and you want me to dissect it, feel free to post and I will do my best.

Oh, one more on the valid speculation of God. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

I have confidence in my work but it needs to be stress-tested. That is why I am looking for an "astute reader" that could help me find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning. The statement that I posted in my introduction is only part of my problem statement, in an effort to solicit some stress-testing of my work. — Pieter R van Wyk

Frankly, it appears that you're looking for an 'obtuse buyer' of your book and that's why you avoid openly discussing its contents.

Good luck with that endeavor.

Frankly, it appears that you're looking for an 'obtuse buyer' of your book and that's why you avoid openly discussing its contents. — praxis

No. I am looking for a reader that can think outside the box, who reads and understand my theory then helps me find a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

"If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extend that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see." p232 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

Thus - there is absolutely no utility to try and explain a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I got the answer I was looking for from my opening statement - my problem statement in Chapter 1 is a valid problem and philosophy is unable tp solve it.

... and good luck with your endeavours.

From there I build a theory which is absolutely a work in progress, but I can't get anybody to go deeper than the initial premise because most just want to talk about human morality. — Philosophim

Where?

EDIT: nvrmind. Found it

I looked for a possible outline (rather than a puzzle piece) on the Amazon sample and was disappointed. To my surprise I did find this nugget of wisdom in your preface though:

“If one cannot state a matter clearly enough so that even an intelligent twelve-year-old can understand it, one should remain within the cloistered walls of the university and laboratory until one gets a better grasp of one's subject matter.”

Don't feed the troll spammer.

There are those who arrive with their Philosophy, and expound it at length, explaining The Way The World Is, to the benefit of every one of the unenlightened. They often seem shocked into incomprehension when someone comes back with a quibble about how their story doesn’t quite follow, contradicts itself, doesn’t match what is plain to all, or derives an “ought” from an “is”. They will complain of straw men, of trolling, or simply of rudeness, apparently being astonished that folk could be so discourteous as to be critical of their work. — Banno

↪Wayfarer
I am not blaming, merely asking a question. According to the Oxford Dictionary, philosophy is:
1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
2. the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.
3. a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour.
So, after 2,600 years of this study we still have armed conflict, poverty and hunger, we are destroying our own environment and we are somehow on the verge of being taken over by artificial intelligence. Why is that?
You mention "unruly human nature" - so, do we accept that the "human nature" that has been studied for this 2,600 years is in fact strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war? — Pieter R van Wyk

As the dictionary noted, Philosophy is the "study" of Nature, including human nature. And it has produced many "theories" for thinking about the problems you listed. But human culture has also developed Religion and Science to do something "practical" about our problems.

Religion typically blames errant human nature for human problems, and prescribes tolerant endurance (Faith, attitude adjustment, virtue development), and/or busy work (rosary & rituals) to keep your mind off your troubles, but postpones any final resolution to another time & place. Meanwhile, Science has produced technological fixes for many of our problems with Nature, but has done little to remedy our troubles with Human Nature*1.

So, it seems that we can either wait patiently for our absconded Savior to return, or philosophically sigh that perhaps another few million years of Evolution will perfect the imperfections of Incomplete Human Nature*2. Meanwhile, we can continue to "study" the People Problem from various perspectives*3. Perhaps beginning with the mote in the eye of the observer. :wink:


*1. “Hell Is Other People”:
Jean-Paul Sartre on Personal Relationships
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/02/08/hell-is-other-people/

*2. Incomplete Nature :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

*3. Buddhism presents a nuanced view of human nature, emphasizing both its potential for goodness and the presence of inherent challenges. While acknowledging our capacity for greed, hatred, and delusion, Buddhism also teaches that we possess Buddha nature, an inherent purity and potential for enlightenment. This nature can be obscured by negative mental traits, but through spiritual practice, we can remove these obstructions and realize our true, enlightened state.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=buddhism+human+nature

I suggest you stay in your cave and watch the shadows play out against the empty wall.
From the "troll spammer."

Thank you for this - yes it would seem some are still stuck in Plato's cave watching the shadows play out against an empty wall.

Who needs enlightenment when you’ve got freshly popped popcorn and a good seat in the cave.

Thank you for the invitation to join this forum. I am joining with some trepidation - I am not a philosopher and I have not any formal qualification in philosophy. But then, according to Jostein Gaarder in 'Sophie's World' - "...the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder ..." I also have to admit that I do not speak any of the peculiar languages 'ology', 'ism' and such, I prefer plain English.
The Problem, from my "faculty of wonder": For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

I too, have no training as a philosopher, and most of my relevant reading prior to retirement has been in the empirical sciences : especially Quantum Physics and Information Theory. But I do "wonder" about non-empirical problems & "why?" questions. So, my retirement hobby is to explore the practical & theoretical implications of my personal worldview*2, which is explained in a website and blog*3.

I haven't read your book, but I have scanned the Google summary*1. Based on that overview, it seems that our worldviews may have some ideas in common, but others that may clash. I'm not familiar with Meta-Mathematics, but I do know a bit about Systems Theory & Holism. I don't meditate, and don't do drugs ; so if we have anything to inter-communicate, it will have to be done in conventional English language, with allowances for a few necessary neologisms. :smile:


*1. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence

Core argument : "It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches".
Note --- If we can't understand the world conceptually, and put it into words, do you think we can only explore the world system experientially, via meditation or drugs?

Beyond Conceptualization :
"It argues that existence is not solely a concept but is inherent in the act of being itself, and that we often lose sight of this when trying to define it through language."
Note --- Again, this "argument" seems to dismiss rational Western Philosophy as incapable of dealing with the ontological problems of humanity. Are you recommending something like Sartre's "being-in-itself" or the spiritual awakening of Ram Dass : "Be Here Now"?

Reception and Criticism :
"The book is described as a potentially controversial work, challenging established philosophical ideas.
It has received criticism for its lack of concrete examples and its potential to alienate readers familiar with traditional philosophy."
Note --- My own amateur personal philosophy questions both "established" philosophical concepts, and "classical" concepts of Newtonian Physics.

Summary :
In essence, the book invites readers to question their assumptions about existence and to consider the possibility that a more fundamental understanding of being is needed to address the complexities of human existence and the world around us.
Note --- I don't know if my Information-theoretic worldview provides a "more fundamental understanding of being", but it is certainly different from both traditional religious & scientific ideologies. If your responses seem encouraging, I may even attempt to read your book.



*2. ENFORMATIONISM
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to the ancient worldviews of Materialism and Idealism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's also a Theory–of–Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

*3. Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

They will complain of straw men, of trolling, or simply of rudeness, apparently being astonished that folk could be so discourteous … — Banno

Or they will say thank you…

Who needs enlightenment when you’ve got freshly popped popcorn and a good seat in the cave. — praxis

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." William Drummond
To which I would add; he that does reason just might gain understanding, perhaps even knowledge.

I will try my very best to respond encouraging enough - I don't meditate nor do drugs either - rather play chess.

Your *1 Thank you for putting this on this forum. The one issue I have is that the responses you quote (Core argument, Beyond conceptualisation, ...) is generated by artificial intelligence, which is (currently still) incapable of abstract thought. I will address your notes:

Note --- If we can't understand the world conceptually, and put it into words, do you think we can only explore the world system experientially, via meditation or drugs? — Gnomon

We can understand the world conceptually AND put it into words - this is exactly what I claim to have done - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- Again, this "argument" seems to dismiss rational Western Philosophy as incapable of dealing with the ontological problems of humanity. Are you recommending something like Sartre's "being-in-itself" or the spiritual awakening of Ram Dass : "Be Here Now"? — Gnomon

This is one of the big misunderstandings that I found from both some of the respondents in this whole preceding conversation AND from artificial intelligence's responses to my work. I do not dismiss rational Western Philosophy per se - I concede unequivocally to its contribution to where we are and what we have today - I merely state that 'philosophy' seems to be unable to solve some of the dire problems that we are facing: such as hunger, curable diseases that is not available to the poor, war, the dangers from artificial intelligence and an environmental disaster of cataclysmic proportion. THEN I propose an understanding that is NOT based on 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour BUT on a fundamental, deduced from 'first principles', definition of a system - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- My own amateur personal philosophy questions both "established" philosophical concepts, and "classical" concepts of Newtonian Physics. — Gnomon

Very valid questions, but easily resolved with a valid solution to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy. The only "solution" from philosophy is Popper's self-referencing definition: science is whatever is discovered from some scientific method. From my definition of a system and classes of systems I was able to solve this demarcation problem - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- I don't know if my Information-theoretic worldview provides a "more fundamental understanding of being", but it is certainly different from both traditional religious & scientific ideologies. If your responses seem encouraging, I may even attempt to read your book. — Gnomon

From my understanding there is certainly some utility in a "Information-theoretic worldview". Some years ago I had some very useful conversations with a savant mathematician on his information-theoretic worldview. He, unfortunately passed away, but I do honour him with my understanding of "consciousness" - he pointed me towards this understanding - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

I have started reading some of your musings on 'enformationism' - my first response is: be very careful of what I call a "philosophical trap", you only end up with oxymorons like "ethics of science". "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." p111 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

IF you decide to read my book THEN please read the whole book before you start shooting holes in my reasoning.

And again, thank you for your openminded response.

Poor Pieter, a modern day Galileo forced to endure to endure the TPF Inquisition—so heroic. :lol:

I was thinking what a shame it would be if your work did have the potential to help solve the worlds problems but never got off the ground because you’re such a terrible marketer.

Your *1 Thank you for putting this on this forum. The one issue I have is that the responses you quote (Core argument, Beyond conceptualisation, ...) is generated by artificial intelligence, which is (currently still) incapable of abstract thought. I will address your notes: — Pieter R van Wyk

Hopefully, semi-sentient but heartless AI will be able to scan your words, and summarize them, without a personal agenda, to warp your intended meaning. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for my own understanding of "the problem" with analytical philosophy. I may have opinions of my own.

I can understand your reticence to reveal bits & pieces of your thesis on the "TPF inquisition" forum, which may evoke unsympathetic & prejudiced responses, by those who enjoy pointing-out Flaws more than noticing Virtues. Any “flaw” in your reasoning would most likely be found in the intuitive or inferential leap from parts to whole. But analytical minds may more easily see the flaws in isolated parts than the synthesized system. :smile:

I propose an understanding that is NOT based on 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour BUT on a fundamental, deduced from 'first principles', definition of a system - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning. — Pieter R van Wyk

For those of us on the outside, can you summarize your “System”, and its Principles, in a single paragraph? If so, I may be able to determine if it is A> of interest to me, and B> within my range to understand. However, due to my own limitations & flaws, I may or may not be able to discern the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning. I'm currently reading a large book on a similar controversial topic : "to expose the fallacies of some of our culture's deepest metaphysical convictions". So I may not be able to get into your book for a while. :meh:
Note --- According to the Wiki quote below, the philosophical quest for wisdom seems to be an abject failure. And yet, some of us still quest-on.
"Philosophy is the study of wisdom, understood as the ability to conduct the human activities; and also as the perfect knowledge of all the things that a man can know for the direction of his life, maintenance of his health, and knowledge of the arts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Philosophy

Very valid questions, but easily resolved with a valid solution to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk

The “demarcation problem” is a struggle to distinguish between Science and Pseudoscience. And I don't have a simple solution. Sometimes today's Woo becomes tomorrow's Wow! : e.g. Plate Tectonics & Germ Theory. Those conjectures were only accepted after they were defined in enough detail to fit a puzzle piece into the whole picture. Can you express your "solution" in a single sentence? :wink:
Note --- If you don't want to over-simplify, in view of trolls & critics, you can message me in the Inbox.

I have started reading some of your musings on 'enformationism' - my first response is: be very careful of what I call a "philosophical trap", you only end up with oxymorons like "ethics of science". "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." — Pieter R van Wyk

I define Laws of Nature simply as “limitations on change”. No ethical implications intended ; unless you imagine those laws as discriminating between Good & Evil, from the perspective of the Programmer. From my cog-in-the-works perspective, they simply steer the evolving cosmos in the direction of Time's Arrow. :nerd:

Excerpt from another reply :

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles. — Pieter R van Wyk

What you call General Systems Theory may be what Jan Smuts encapsulated as Holism. Which is one of the basic principles of my own thesis. It's fundamental to my worldview. :cool:

Holism and Evolution
Orderly Cosmic Transformation
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html
Note 3. What is complex systems science? :    “Complex phenomena are hidden, beyond masking by space and time, through nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence”.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/

I have sent a contact request to your academia link.

I can post a sentence or even a paragraph summary of any of my concepts - it will only be a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle OR a small part of a big painting, virtually useless.

I could say to you:

"System := Components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose." p27, p135

and

"The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exist no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature" p69 Solving the demarcation problem.

and

"Law (of nature) := If the sum of mass, energy and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature." p34

and

...

I can even tell you that holism and reductionism is simply two sides of the same coin. "It (my systems theory) describes a logic of understanding any part of a whole and any whole as a part." p200

and

discriminating between Good & Evil — Gnomon

is simply philosophical musings used and misused by politicians in order to motivate the decisions they are selling to the hoi polloi.

Then ... I don't mind sideswipe's from the "TPF Inquisition"; the only utility from philosophy is that from time to time their musings coalesce into some new political movement. And, we all know where 'politics' are leading us - apparently a perpetuation of poverty and war. But then how do we make our world a better place to live our lives? A new political movement based on human consciousness? This 'consciousness' that nobody, not even philosophers, can define - thus simply a new religion:

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180

I can go on with such excerpts for as long as you like, it will still be only a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I am quite sure that my work would be quite within your range of understanding, the only question outstanding is:

if it is A> of interest to me — Gnomon

but that can only be determined by you yourself.

I looked for your book today and read your free introduction on Amazon. Two problems for me:

1. No digital copy.
2. Far too expensive for a first time unknown and uncredentialed author.

You're going to have to decide what you want out of this. Is your purpose to make money? I'm sure you're familiar with the book market and understand its not the place to do so for most people.

Do you want to have it read and people seriously discuss your work? Make an electronic pdf, host it somewhere, and link to it here in the forum for people read and dissect. There are people like myself who would willingly read it and give it a chance. But we're not going to pay for something from an unknown in the field who for all we know just has an opinion vs groundbreaking work.

Obviously your idea cannot be summarized on the forum, otherwise you wouldn't write a 260 page book. The only way you're going to get a serious discussion that understands your ideas is buy getting people to read it. If you do decide to make an electronic version, message me here and I promise you I'll read it and give a fair critique.

"System := Components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose." p27, p135 — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. That's one way to describe the notion of Holism. Systems Theory was developed --- by Bertallanffy, et al --- primarily for pragmatic scientific or engineering purposes. But Holism was intended by Jan Smuts mostly for philosophical applications, such as understanding the Hows & Whys of natural Evolution. Here's my own definition of Holism :

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

"The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exist no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature" p69 Solving the demarcation problem. — Pieter R van Wyk

I assume that instead of "collection" you meant "connection". Physically, a "demarcation meridian" is simply a point of reference for defining boundaries. But I suppose your DM is a philosophical assertion that Natural & Cultural laws are categorically distinct, with no overlap, no connection. But how does that "solve" the problem of distinguishing between Science and Pseudoscience? Are you saying that Science is natural (hence factual) and Pseudoscience is cultural (hence imaginary or counterfactual)? That seems to be merely a restatement of the problem, not a solution. :wink:

I can even tell you that holism and reductionism is simply two sides of the same coin. "It (my systems theory) describes a logic of understanding any part of a whole and any whole as a part." — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. Reductionism is basically the Scientific Method devised in the 17th century. That's a practical way for humans to break Nature down into analytically understandable puzzle pieces. But 20th century Holism is a Philosophical method --- "a logic of understanding" --- for viewing a collection of entangled holons as integral & functional parts of an interacting System, with novel functions of its own. :nerd:

The New Physics :
“The advent of holism in the 20th century coincided with the gradual development of quantum mechanics. Holism in physics is the nonseparability of physical systems from their parts, especially quantum phenomena. Classical physics cannot be regarded as holistic, as the behavior of individual parts represents the whole.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html


PS___ I included the Academia link in my last post because C. van Wyck is a scholar of Holistic Science, and he may be related to you :
Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/