Insofar as you posit an intentional entity as first cause, I would say you have moved well beyond information theory, and into spookier regions than Lazlo and Bohm. — Janus

That's because I have moved beyond the Big Bang, into the realm of Eternity and Infinity. If you're going to postulate god-like functions, you need to include creation of reality as we know it. :smile:

To me eternal means non-temporal and infinite means non-finite. These are to be understood only in an apophatic sense, not to be reified as substantive entities. Of course the tendency to do that reification is apparently perfectly natural for humans. I don't want to make any metaphysically positive claims on the basis of what seems merely "logically necessary". :wink:

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't accusing you of chiding me or anything, just taking the opportunity to ask about a norm I had been wondering about anyway. Glad to see you agree, as does...



I would use the terms a little differently than you do. To my mind "thing" and "object" are synonyms, and objects are a major part of metaphysics (in either the sense I'm advocating or the conventional one), namely ontology, about being, where a being is likewise synonymous with a thing or an object. I would instead characterize the physical sciences (those reducible to physics) as being about contingent, a posteriori descriptions of reality, while metaphysics as I would like to construe it is about the necessary, a priori philosophical framework needed to go about doing such description: the semantics of what it means to make a descriptive assertion, the criteria by which we judge such assertions correct or incorrect, the nature of the minds doing that judgement, the methods by which such judgement is rightly conducted, and the social organization of the proceeds of such judgements.

In my Codex Quaerendae (I guess we're allowed to link our personal projects here?) I like to think of the last four as being about the "objects of reality" (or ontology, covering most of the traditional metaphysical topics like substances and attributes, causes and effects, space and time, etc), the "subjects of reality" (or philosophy of mind), the "methods of knowledge" (or epistemology), and the "institutes of knowledge" (or philosophy of academics); or less verbosely as about being, mind, belief, and education.

(And in parallel, I would characterize the ethical sciences I advocate for as being about contingent, a posteriori prescriptions of morality, while metaethics as I would like to construe it is about the necessary, a priori philosophical framework needed to go about doing such prescription: the semantics of what it means to make a prescriptive assertion, the criteria by which we judge such assertions correct or incorrect, the nature of the wills doing that judgement, the methods by which such judgement is rightly conducted, and the social organization of the proceeds of such judgements. I like to think of the last four as being about the "objects of morality" (or teleology in the sense synonymous with consequentialism), the "subjects of morality" (or philosophy of will), the "methods of justice" (or deontology), and the "institutes of justice" (or political philosophy); or less verbosely as about purpose, will, intention, and governance.)

A technical question aside here: how does one quote a previous post in this forum software?

Insofar as you posit an intentional entity as first cause and director, I would say you have moved well beyond information theory, and into spookier regions than Lazlo and Bohm. — Janus

If you feel that my notion of an intentional G*D is spooky, that's probably because you're thinking of the gods of Religion, instead of the god of Philosophy. The intention of G*D is encoded into the logical mathematical program we call Nature. There's no magic or mysticism in nature; it's all in the minds of people who are fearful or credulous.

I don't think Laszlo and Bohm were intentionally into spooky stuff, but some of their hypothetical postulates have been equated by New Agers with Eastern esotericism. And speaking of supernatural spookiness, Madame Blavatsky (Theosophy) borrowed the pre-scientific Hindu hypothesis of an Etheric Plane for her theory of the Akashic Field, as a pseudo-scientific explanation for various traditional spiritual notions.

That non-Christian account of impersonal good versus evil forces may have inspired the fictional religion of The Force in Star Wars. Except that The Force was supposedly generated by an energy field within all living beings. For those with a high Midichlorian count, magical and mystical powers were available. For example, Darth Vader could choke people without touching them. So I find the New Age notion of the powerful, but non-conscious & non-intentional, Akashic Field -- as a substitute for traditional intervening & meddling supernatural gods -- to be associated with some weird magical & mystical & unnatural & spooky stuff. :gasp:


"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

To me eternal means non-temporal and infinite means non-finite. These are to be understood only in an apophatic sense, not to be reified as substantive entities. Of course the tendency to do that reification is apparently perfectly natural for humans. I don't want to make any metaphysically positive claims on the basis of what seems merely "logically necessary". — Janus

Yes. Until astronomers calculated that the universe suddenly emerged into space-time from nowhere and nowhen, the philosophical concepts of a supernatural God were inherently apophatic (definition by negation). But now we have positive evidence that the temporal physical universe is necessarily non-eternal. Which logically implies that some kind of cause must necessarily exist beyond space-time in the imaginary realm we call Eternity.

Plus, modern developments in mathematics have forced philosophers to take Infinity seriously, as a "substantive" concept, in the sense of "essential". Infinity and Zero are not assumed to be physical entities, but metaphysical concepts that have a strong relationship to reality. They are not reified though, but merely accepted as logically necessary axioms for reasoning beyond the normal limitations of our experience. For example, before the Calculus was invented, prejudices against infinities prevented mathematicians from being able to calculate non-Euclidian geometry.

Likewise, the sciences of Quantum Physics would be impossible, if practitioners were unable to accept paradoxical results as "logically necessary". :cool:

I would use the terms a little differently than you do. — Pfhorrest

That's OK. My terminology is derived mostly from Information Theory. Your "comprehensive system of philosophy" is similar to my Enformationism Worldview, except that my terminology tries to stick closer to modern science than to ancient philosophy. In any case, our worldviews are inherently colored by our personal experiences and preferences.

A technical question aside here: how does one quote a previous post in this forum software? — Pfhorrest

Drag the mouse to highlight a section of text, and a black box will appear with the word "Quote". After you click the box, the text will appear in the comment box at the bottom of the page, along with the name of the person quoted, and a notification will be added to that person's "You" profile.

Drag the mouse to highlight a section of text, and a black box will appear with the word "Quote". — Gnomon

Thanks so much, works like a charm!

Which logically implies that some kind of cause must necessarily exist beyond space-time in the imaginary realm we call Eternity. — Gnomon

Now I'm not sure whether you think Eternity is real or imaginary.

Infinity and Zero are not assumed to be physical entities, but metaphysical concepts that have a strong relationship to reality. — Gnomon

They are certainly concepts that have an important function in mathematics. I'm not sure what you mean by " a strong relationship to reality". Are you suggesting that infinity and zero are real in the sense of being more than mere concepts? If so, what could that "more" consist in? Whatever we want to say it consists in, as opposed to apophatically stating what they could not consist in; would that not be to begin to deploy "spooky" ideas?

If we speak of the transcendent, as opposed to the merely transcendental (what is beyond our experience and understanding), then we are departing from our justified mode of apophasis and moving into the unjustified mode of kataphasis, that leads straight to reification, superstitious beliefs, dogma and fundamentalism.

Sorry to interrupt, but.....

Paranthesizing “what is beyond our experience and understanding” and placing it after “transcendental” doesn’t allow the “if we speak...” to conform to the “then we are departing....”.

Surely you don’t think the transcendental can be beyond our understanding, at least in any way synonymous with the transcendent being so.

Or tell me to scram and let the Big Kids have the sandbox. (Grin)

Now I'm not sure whether you think Eternity is real or imaginary. — Janus

As I said, "the imaginary realm we call Eternity". Reality is typically defined as that which is objective (you and I can both experience it). Ideality is that which is subjective (only I can directly experience it). But humans can share their experiences in the form of words. And words may be misinterpreted, depending on the varieties of personal experience. Have you ever experienced Eternity or Infinity? No, but you can imagine a timeless non-spatial state by analogy with your experience with space-time. Our metaphors are useful for conveying qualities that may not be apparent to others. But they can also be misleading when taken literally. That's why I say Eternity is not real . . . it's ideal.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a strong relationship to reality". — Janus

There is no Zero (non-existence) in reality (physical existence). But we find that unreal notion useful as a negation of reality. Again, we can imagine non-existence as a way to describe something that could possibly exist, but is missing in actuality. In mathematics, numbers are names for things that can be counted physically, but zero is the name for something that cannot be counted. Although "zero" is literally non-existent, it still has a function in math. It has a functional relationship to reality. Similarly, I can say that your Mind is not real (I can't see it), but it obviously has a function that is related to the real brain that I could see if I opened your head. Functions are not real, but they are relevant. So, we sometimes give names to functions, as-if they were real. Ideality is as-if.

Are you suggesting that infinity and zero are real in the sense of being more than mere concepts? — Janus

No. They are not real, but they are useful concepts. "Functions" are links between Cause & Effect, but they are not physically real things. As Hume noted, Causation is something we infer, not something we actually experience. Likewise, Infinity and Zero are functions (ideas) that we infer from our experience with space-time. Zero is a function of (1 thing minus 1 thing).

If we speak of the transcendent, as opposed to the merely transcendental (what is beyond our experience and understanding), then we are departing from our justified mode of apophasis and moving into the unjustified mode of kataphasis, that leads straight to reification, superstitious beliefs, dogma and fundamentalism. — Janus

"Transcendent" is another word for that which is not real -- it is assumed to "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. Reality is space-time, so something Transcendent is assumed to be non-local and non-temporal. But we often imagine such non-things metaphorically as-if they are real things (i.e. reification). Christians subjectively experience "evil" and imagine that adjective as-if it were an objective living being, and give it a name : Satan. In that case, they may be deceiving themselves with scary stories of "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour".

On the other hand, mathematicians find reification useful, when they give a name to non-existence (Zero). Likewise, I gave the name "G*D" to a necessary function (creation) to serve as a place-holder for something transcendent and unreal, but definitely relevant to our desire to understand the origin of our world. G*D is not real, but ideal . . . and useful. It's when you make-up elaborate as-if myths about those unknowable abstractions that reification becomes superstition.

BTW, my Enformationism theory is all about the role of information in the Real world. The transcendent G*D concept is merely an unprovable Axiom, used as-in mathematics as a starting point for developing a provable theory. Scientists are currently proving the practical role of information in Physics, Biology, and Psychology. I merely look at the system of enformation as a whole.

Axiom : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Surely you don’t think the transcendental can be beyond our understanding, at least in any way synonymous with the transcendent being so. — Mww

You are right to pick me up for that sloppy use of language. What I meant is that the transcendental is what is beyond our experience and the understanding of it; beyond an a posteriori understanding, in other words. The way I think about it is that it consists in the conditions for the emergence of the empirical field of experience, and that that is about as much as we can positively say about it.

Anything we say about it will be couched in terms that have been derived from the empirical field, so mostly we can say what it is not, else we will commit the reifications that give us the positive ideas of the transcendent.

The idea of the transcendent consists in positive thought, it consists in kataphatic theology, in other words, in illegitimate reifications derived from ideas proper to the empirical field.

That's why I say Eternity is not real . . . it's ideal. — Gnomon

The problem often lies with terminology. For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. So I would say that what we think of as the eternal is either real or ideal, and that we don't know which. There are inherent problems, in any case, with pushing the bounds of language and then imagining that there is some "objective reality" which could be somehow isomorphic with our reifications.

Nothing wrong with exercising our imaginations, provided we don't take those exercises too seriously.

"Transcendent" is another word for that which is not real -- it is assumed to "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. Reality is space-time, so something Transcendent is assumed to be non-local and non-temporal. — Gnomon

Here's another example of language I would not use. I would say the transcendental is real, but we cannot say what it is. Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. So, the quantum vacuum, or the akashic field, or the apeiron, or god or nature or substance or whatever you want to call it is real, but virtually, not empirically so.

The transcendent G*D concept is merely an unprovable Axiom, used as-in mathematics as a starting point for developing a provable theory. — Gnomon

I would rather say "the transcendental G*d concept", in light of what I explained in my previous post. I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, but theorems are not theories and that there are no provable theories has been convincingly demonstrated by Popper.

The idea of the transcendent consists in positive thought, it consists in kataphatic theology, in other words, in illegitimate reifications derived from ideas proper to the empirical field. — Janus

For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. — Janus

Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. — Janus

I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, but theorems are not theories and that there are no provable theories has been convincingly demonstrated by Popper. — Janus

I really really want to find fault with any or all of these insights ... Maybe Gnomon, Metaphysician Undercover, et al are up to that challenge. But damn, J, well done. :clap:

Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. — Janus

Quite right. That is why up until Aquinas, any statements about G*d were understood as strictly analogical. To say that G*d ‘exists’ is an error - ordinary objects exist, but they only exist because they are sustained in being by what is beyond existence. Accordingly, the foundation of existence is not something that exists - not non-existent, but beyond existence.

now we have positive evidence that the temporal physical universe is necessarily non-eternal. Which logically implies that some kind of cause must necessarily exist beyond space-time in the imaginary realm we call Eternity. — Gnomon

Here's an interesting tidbit. Georges LeMaître as we know was the originator of what has since become known as 'big bang theory'.

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[36] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[37][38][17] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[39] While a devout Catholic, he opposed mixing science with religion,[40] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[41] — Wikipedia entry on Georges LeMaitre

Great scientist, that guy. And incidentally an illustration of why Catholicism generally disdains ‘intelligent design’ or anything of that ilk.

Even though I don't adhere to any form of idealism, I quite like F. H. Bradley's quote:

Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct

- Appearance and Reality, preface (1893).

WHEW!!!! When someone who is historically concise, intelligible, insightful, makes what seems like a mistake, makes me wonder if I made the mistake in thinking there was one.

But being a card-carrying, dyed-in-the-wool Kantian, you know I just had to have clarification on that “transcendental” stuff, so.......thanks for that.

I now return you to your normally scheduled sandbox. Have fun!!!

I really really want to find fault with any or all of these insights ... Maybe Gnomon, Metaphysician Undercover, et al are up to that challenge. But damn, J, well done — 180 Proof

It's very easy to find fault with Janus' principles. But Janus doesn't listen, so I've given up on that. Here's some examples:

For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. — Janus

There is no such thing as "what is". "Is" refers to what is "now", present tense, and time passes so fast, that by the time the future is present, it is past. One cannot say "what is", because by the time this is done, it is past. "The present" is an illusion, as is "what is", because all is future and past. So Janus' claim, that "the real is what is", is nothing other than a claim that what is an illusion "the present", is what is real.

It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. — Janus

Reality, according to what it has been claim to be, above, is already an illusion, as nothing "is". Therefore everything must be beyond the bounds of reality, as defined. So it is not only the case that something "could" exist beyond the bounds of reality, it is necessary that if anything exists at all, it is beyond the bounds of reality, when reality is defined in that way.

But Janus only pretends to listen to reason, until it gets too difficult to maintain the principles which Janus holds in the face of reason which demonstrates the deficiencies of these, then Janus let's go and slips back into the unreasonable principles, and refuses to listen.

The problem often lies with terminology. — Janus

If you have a problem with my Enformationism terminology, you are welcome to consult the Glossary.

For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. — Janus

How, then, do you know "what is" apart from experience? Do you have extra-sensory perception? We make guesses about what "could" be, by extrapolating from sensory experience to what seems statistically possible.

So I would say that what we think of as the eternal is either real or ideal, and that we don't know which. — Janus

Please clarify your terminology. In what sense would you say that "the eternal" is Real? Is it a parallel reality, existing beyond the scope of our time-bound senses? Or is it like the position & velocity of an electron, existing in super-position, so that we cannot measure those properties? Are your categories of "real" and "ideal" so indeterminate that humans can't decide which is which?

There are inherent problems, in any case, with pushing the bounds of language and then imagining that there is some "objective reality" which could be somehow isomorphic with our reifications. — Janus

Yes. That's how people imagine "evil" as a human-like entity, and give it a personal name. Can you discriminate whether Satan is Real or Ideal? Is he a maybe?

I would say the transcendental is real, but we cannot say what it is. — Janus

Why not? "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ___Wittgenstein :smile:

Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. — Janus

Yes. That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Actual (space-time; empirical; Real) and Potential (imaginary; theoretical; Ideal).
The term "exist" normally refers to physical, empirical stuff. But in what sense do Ideas exist? If they are not real, why do we speak of ideas as-if they have some meaning, some relevance? Hamlet spoke of "to be, or not to be", as-if it was a viable option. In order to discuss philosophy, we must come to terms with ideas and ideality, or else we can only do pragmatic Science. Is Science a real thing? Does Science exist?

So, the quantum vacuum, or the akashic field, or the apeiron, or god or nature or substance or whatever you want to call it is real, but virtually, not empirically so. — Janus

Is the Akashic Field real in the same sense that a Quantum Field is real? The latter is pure mathematical imagination with no empirical substance. Yet, we find the concept useful for mathematical calculations. Physicists created the concept of a Virtual Particle out of pure imagination, as a place-holder for something indeterminate (superposition) because it exists only as statistical potential, but is useful for calculations. What is the Akashic field good for, other than for story-telling? Is Virtual Reality really real, or is it an idea in the mind of the beholder (hence Ideal)?

I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, — Janus

I used the term "provable" in the sense of "testable", not in the sense of "certainty". Science has come to terms with uncertainty, but they still test their hypotheses in order to weed out those that have no pragmatic usefulness. Darwin's hypothesis of the evolutionary process won't be absolutely proven for a million years. But, meanwhile it serves as a framework for understanding biology. The G*D hypothesis, as I said, is unprovable, but useful for making sense of the role of ideal immaterial information in the real material world.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." ___Theodosius Dobzhansky

"Nothing in reality makes sense, except in the light of EnFormAction." ____Gnomon

I really really want to find fault with any or all of these insights ... — 180 Proof

Thanks 180, I really want to find fault with them myself, and be able to come to something better. I think there is a common currency of terms like 'reality' and 'existence' and that what is said should make sense in terms of that common currency. I'm confident the common understanding is there, but it seems it's not always easy to tease out...

But Janus doesn't listen — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that's an unfair statement MU; I'm prepared to listen, but if someone distorts what I have said, then their criticisms are not relevant. Or if I can't make sense of what someone says, then I'll say so and ask for clarification.

There is no such thing as "what is". "Is" refers to what is "now", present tense — Metaphysician Undercover

That would be a fair point if I was speaking in terms of temporality, but I was speaking generally about what I think the common meaning of the term 'real' is. What is real is what is...what was real is what was...what will be real is what will be. The point is that I think we have a common understanding that what is real, as such, does not depend on us, or on our experience. That doesn't stop anyone from claiming that there is nothing real beyond our experience, obviously, but what possible grounds could someone have for claiming that beyond attempting to redefine the common understanding of the term 'real' to fit their position?

“For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.” as Wittgenstein says (or said if you insist that I be temporally correct).

Quite right. That is why up until Aquinas, any statements about G*d were understood as strictly analogical. To say that G*d ‘exists’ is an error - ordinary objects exist, but they only exist because they are sustained in being by what is beyond existence. Accordingly, the foundation of existence is not something that exists - not non-existent, but beyond existence. — Wayfarer

I understand where you are coming from, there have been some attempts to distinguish between the idea of reality and the idea of existence or between different ideas of existence and being. Heidegger's 'Existential' and 'Existentiell' come to mind. But I think the common understanding of 'being' and 'existence' are that they are synonymous. Likewise I think the common understanding of the terms 'reality' and 'existence' are synonymous. So if something is real, then it exists, tout court.

So, I would rephrase what you say here: "ordinary objects exist, but they only exist because they are sustained in being by what is beyond existence" to something like "ordinary objects exist but their existence depends on something that is beyond our experience (of them or their existence)'.

I want philosophy to be deflationary in a way, but I agree with Popper that metaphysical speculation is in important, not just for the arts, poetry etc. but also that it is central to the development of science.

So I mostly agree with this:

I used the term "provable" in the sense of "testable", not in the sense of "certainty". Science has come to terms with uncertainty, but they still test their hypotheses in order to weed out those that have no pragmatic usefulness. Darwin's hypothesis of the evolutionary process won't be absolutely proven for a million years. But, meanwhile it serves as a framework for understanding biology. The G*D hypothesis, as I said, is unprovable, but useful for making sense of the role of ideal immaterial information in the real material world. — Gnomon

although I wouldn't say that they are "axioms" as Gnomon does, but that they are conjectures as Popper says or speculations. The G*d hypothesis has been an axiomatic presumption in the development of science, to be sure, but we don't have to follow the ancient and/or medieval thinkers in treating such hypotheses as axioms, we can treat them as provisional ideas to be entertained to see where they might lead our thought.

How, then, do you know "what is" apart from experience? — Gnomon

I'm not saying we do or can. I'm just trying to clarify what we commonly mean by saying that something is real is all.

Please clarify your terminology. In what sense would you say that "the eternal" is Real? — Gnomon

I'm not saying the eternal is real, or at least I'm not claiming to be able to say or even guess, how it is real. Even if we could say that logically it must be real; what would that establish beyond the domain of human logic? All I wanted to point out is that the possibilities we can imagine is that it is real or it is merely imaginary or conceptual. Language is tricky.

Is the Akashic Field real in the same sense that a Quantum Field is real? — Gnomon

I don't know if the Akashic Field is real. Lazlo speculates that all information is "held" somehow in the Akashic Field and in-forms or "en-forms" the phenomenal world. The idea of the Quantum Field is something similar, as far as I understand it (not much since I am no physicist) although there is no specific idea of information being "held" there as far as I know. Spinoza's idea of substance is the idea of an eternal being from which all phenomena emerge, as is Anaximander's apeiron. These are various attempts to think about the transcendental, about what gives rise to phenomena. It is all speculation.

I now return you to your normally scheduled sandbox. Have fun!!! — Mww

Thanks Mww, I hope I don't "soil" it. :joke:

That would be a fair point if I was speaking in terms of temporality, but I was speaking generally about what I think the common meaning of the term 'real' is. What is real is what is...what was real is what was...what will be real is what will be. The point is that I think we have a common understanding that what is real, as such, does not depend on us, or on our experience. — Janus

See this is evidence of what I said, you don't listen. Instead of addressing my point (that "is" necessarily implies temporality present, now) directly, you simply side step the issue.

If "what is real" , is what "is", and the existence of the present depends on us, as it appears in modern scientific theory that the present (now) is a subjective perspective (the observer's point of view), then how can there be a "what is real" independent of an observer's perspective? And an observer's perspective requires an "observer". All we have here is a glorified form of the relativism presented by the sophist Protagoras. You claim that "what is" gives you a perspective independent reality, but "is" requires a perspective.

I'll tell you, that this position of yours (concerning what "is") is denied by many modern metaphysicians who attempt to maintain consistency with relativity theory. In physics we describe reality in terms of motions, assuming that all is moving, and this is conducive to a philosophy of process, everything is changing, there is no rest, or what "is". in any absolute sense. This means that any description of "what is" is just that, a description, artificial, produced by the observer, and that which is supposed to be independent, being described, is incompatible, and therefore completely different and unlike any description, of "what is". Furthermore, this metaphysical position is strongly supported by Hegelian dialectics, which also supports dialectical materialism, and dialetheism. These positions accept violation of the contradiction law, such that reality must accept what is and what is not. That's because "becoming", change, motion and activity, which is what reality consists of for these metaphysicians, cannot be adequately described in terms of is and is not.

You may understand this incompatibility from the discrepancies between the ancient philosophies of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides described reality in terms of being, what is and is not, and this position supported the idealism of the Pythagoreans and others. Heraclitus described reality in terms of becoming, motion and change. Plato considered both of these perspectives, and found them to be incompatible.

From the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition, dualism is the solution to this problem. Reality must be described with reference to two distinct and incompatible aspects, the passive (what is), and the active (what is changing). The monist simplification which you propose, "the real is what is", only reintroduces this problem of incompatibility. So it is very easily demonstrated as unacceptable, inadequate, as a return to presocratic confusion.

although I wouldn't say that they are "axioms" as Gnomon does, but that they are conjectures as Popper says or speculations. — Janus

My notion of G*D is indeed a speculation or conjecture, because I have no real-world experience with anything outside of space-time. But it is also an Axiom in the sense that G*D is "a premise or starting point for reasoning." Enformationism is intended to be a 21st century update of ancient Materialism and Spiritualism. Since mundane Information consists of immaterial ideas as the content of material "carriers", it is necessarily an Ideal "object", not a real thing.

So, in order to establish a rational foundation for a real world in which Information is ubiquitous -- I.e. reality functions like a computer program -- I must assume the "existence" of an Enformer or Programmer. And since there is a common conventional name for that Creator function, I decided not to use some abstruse philosophical term, but to merely make a spelling change to indicate that this is not your Priest's or Pastor's ancient obsolete notion of a heavenly king, but a novel concept in keeping with our modern understanding of the Cosmos.

we can treat them as provisional ideas to be entertained to see where they might lead our thought. — Janus

Precisely.

I'm not saying the eternal is real, — Janus

That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Real and Ideal, Experiential and Imaginary. Imaginary things are usually abstractions from reality. And as such, may be plausible and generally acceptable, or dubious and subject to skeptical analysis. That's why I accept the notion of "Eternity" as a rational inference from the spatial & temporal limitations of Reality, logically requiring a First Cause of space & time to explain how reality came to be.

I don't know if the Akashic Field is real. — Janus

I don't have a problem with the mathematical concept of "fields" to describe something that is logically necessary, but actually abstract (not real). It's an aid to visualization of abstractions. The Akashic Field is an ancient philosophical attempt to make sense of the abstract-Mind vs concrete-Body mystery. But, over the years, the general concept has collected a lot of mystical baggage that is no longer necessary, since we now have more mundane explanations for strange observations.

For example, some explanations for Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) assume that those experiences can only be understood as taking place in real-but-parallel planes of existence. Yet modern science has given us more insight into how the brain converts sensory experiences into mental images. So, a more practical assumption for OBEs is that they are similar to dreams. In fact, I had OBEs and NDEs when I was young. But having no mystical assumptions, I merely interpreted them as strange dreams.

I now have an Information-based explanation for both Akashic and Quantum Fields.

"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

everything is changing, there is no rest, or what "is". in any absolute sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is noted, as nothing particular can last for more than an instant. With no absolute, we no longer have to figure how a permanent unchanging thing can change. So, then there are no things, just events, some of them very long, such as a rock or a proton.

Now the point I was making to Janus is that if we divide events up, or put events together, which is what we have to do to say "this is a rock", or "that is a proton", this is just a human construct. So it makes no sense to talk about "what is", independent of human experience, because "what is" is a human construct, and there is no such thing as what is, without the human consciousness which constructs it.

If "what is real" , is what "is", and the existence of the present depends on us, as it appears in modern scientific theory that the present (now) is a subjective perspective (the observer's point of view), then how can there be a "what is real" independent of an observer's perspective? — Metaphysician Undercover

Whether or not there can be anything real apart from any observer's perspective is not a question I am attempting to answer. My concern was with what is commonly meant by "real", and what is commonly meant just is something indepedent of any observer's perspective. So, who is not listening, eh?

I don't know if the Akashic Field is real. — Janus

I don't have a problem with the mathematical concept of "fields" to describe something that is logically necessary, but actually abstract (not real). It's an aid to visualization of abstractions. The Akashic Field is an ancient philosophical attempt to make sense of the abstract-Mind vs concrete-Body mystery. But, over the years, the general concept has collected a lot of mystical baggage that is no longer necessary, since we now have more mundane explanations for strange observations. — Gnomon

I'm not sure that Quantum theorists would agree with you that the quantum field has nothing more than an abstract reality.

As to the Akashic Field, I am quite familair with the history of the idea; and it's revival by Theosophists. I was concerned only with Lazlo's take on it. So, when I say I don't know if the Akashic Field is real, you should take that to mean, I am not convinced either way as to whether the quantum vacuum holds information in the way Lazlo theorizes. I just think it's an interesting idea.

I'm not sure that Quantum theorists would agree with you that the quantum field has nothing more than an abstract reality. — Janus

Some would and some wouldn't. I was referring to the mathematical definition of a Field :
"In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined, and behave as the corresponding operations on rational and real numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure, which is widely used in algebra, number theory and many other areas of mathematics." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

Is a "Set" or "Algebraic Structure" concrete or abstract, real or ideal? That depends on how you look at it.

The various fields are defined in terms of hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points. Yet, it's not the substanceless points that are important, but the relationships (ratios) between them, as in geometry and trigonometry. That is also how Information works in the real world. A "bit" of Information is a relationship between two or more objects (basically 1 or 0). Multiple bits add-up to physical fields, and fields add-up to matter (fluctuations in the field are what we detect as particles). When human beings observe those physical objects, the mind detects those ratios (physical information), and interprets them as meaning (mental information).
<<Note : interpretation of RATIOS is the basis of REASONING.>>

Electromagnetic Fields and Quantum Fields are just special cases of the universal Information Field. I could also say that the Information Field is an update of the ancient notion of the Akashic Field.

Physicist Victor Toth answered the question, "What is a quantum field?" in this manner :
"But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter." ___ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/20/what-is-a-quantum-field-and-how-does-it-interact-with-matter/#6c0495928c4a

That would also be my answer to "What is an Information Field?" : the information field does not interact with matter, it is matter.

These ideas are far outside the understanding of the "man on the street". And even for philosophers and physicists are so unconventional as to sound absurd. The Enformationism Thesis attempts to begin at the beginning, and to build-up a worldview based on Information rather than Matter or Spirit.
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Whether or not there can be anything real apart from any observer's perspective is not a question I am attempting to answer. My concern was with what is commonly meant by "real", and what is commonly meant just is something indepedent of any observer's perspective. So, who is not listening, eh? — Janus

This is what you said:

For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. — Janus

You were clearly associating "what is" with something independent of any observer's perspective

What I pointed out is that it doesn't make sense to speak of the real as "what is", and try to separate "what is" from what we experience, because for something to be, (and this is what "what is" refers to), requires an experiential perspective. Furthermore, there is a large body of evidence, and philosophical arguments, which demonstrate that if anything did, or could, exist separate from any experiential perspective, it would be completely different from, and incompatible with, what we refer to with "what is".

All of that supports the conclusion that it is unacceptable metaphysically, to speak of "the real" as "something independent of any observer's perspective", whether or not this is common parlance. Common parlance is often inconsistent with what is acceptable within a field of study. Logic shows that there couldn't be anything without an observer's perspective, so it really doesn't make sense to define "the real" as that which is independent of any observer's perspective, because this would just be like saying that there is nothing real, no such thing as reality. That's why I said your claims are just an attempt to make the illusion (that there could be something independent of an observer's perspective) into reality.

Physicist Victor Toth answered the question, "What is a quantum field?" in this manner :
"But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter." ___ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/20/what-is-a-quantum-field-and-how-does-it-interact-with-matter/#6c0495928c4a

That would also be my answer to "What is an Information Field?" : the information field does not interact with matter, it is matter. — Gnomon

The problem though, is that matter itself is just an idea, a concept. It was introduced by Aristotle as an attempt to substantiate logic, being faced with the scourge of sophism. In more modern times, physics has replaced matter with energy, which substantiates its logic. Perhaps it now turns to "fields". Aristotle however, laid down strict conditions, metaphysical principles, concerning the use of "matter" (as an idea). These were derived from a logical treatise on the nature of "change", his Physics. Those conditions have long ago been ignored, and have been superseded by metaphysical principles which do not adhere to such strict principles.

The issue being that "matter" was introduced into physics as necessary to account for the unintelligible aspects of change. These unintelligible aspects allowed sophists to argue the reality of absurdities But "matter" is defined metaphysically (because it is of the unintelligible). Under the direction of Aristotle, it is a concept formulated with specific logical rules, intended to keep physics "real", grounded. If we move away from these rules, without introducing new rules which are at least as rigorous as the old, there is nothing to keep physics real, or grounded.

Is a "Set" or "Algebraic Structure" concrete or abstract, real or ideal? — Gnomon

Real. Hence the fundamental truth of mathematical Platonism: that intelligible objects are real, but they're not material in nature (in other words, they're incorporeal but real). They're real because 'the same for all observers', but ideal in that they can only be seen by 'the mind's eye'. Very few will see that or agree with it.

I think the common understanding of 'being' and 'existence' are that they are synonymous. Likewise I think the common understanding of the terms 'reality' and 'existence' are synonymous — Janus

How is 'the common understanding' relevant for metaphysics? Just because it's something 'everyone knows' or think they know, doesn't make it so. Numbers and geometric concepts are a case in point.

From the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition, dualism is the solution to this problem. Reality must be described with reference to two distinct and incompatible aspects, the passive (what is), and the active (what is changing). — Metaphysician Undercover

Interestingly, 'matter' (hyle) is derived from the same root as 'mother', with the connotation of it being the passive component. The 'active' component is, on the one hand, the 'active intellect', when individuated, or intellect in general.

Interestingly, 'matter' (hyle) is derived from the same root as 'mother', with the connotation of it being the passive component. The 'active' component is, on the one hand, the 'active intellect', when individuated, or intellect in general. — Wayfarer

We may have discussed this briefly before. Plato makes this reference to the female aspect, in Timaeus, referring to ancient myths. He might be criticized for being sexist when he describes matter or "the receptacle", in this way, but he is really just referring to this ancient wisdom, citing myths, to support what he is putting forward as the relationship between universal forms, and particular material objects.

In their discussion in the Timaeus they find it necessary to posit "matter" as a principle of individuality. However, the matter is necessarily passive, as being merely a receptacle for the active form which will in-form the matter, determining what type of thing will be generated. It's really just an analogy using the ancient understanding of sexual reproduction, but it's not a very good analogy because it portrays the mother as completely passive in determining the traits of the off-spring, and even the ancient Greeks, though they gave priority to a good sire, knew by this time that this was not true.