Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute?
1h — Gus Lamarch

I suppose one place to start would be, what is the meaning of absolute? In mathematics (which is closely related to Platonism/Metaphysics), you have Cantor's Absolute. Then of course you have other philosophical ideas that perhaps are a bit more intriguing relative to consciousness:




In any case, I'm not sure we can escape the metaphysical elements...

It seems to me that the idea presented and described by Plotino, is less about a divine figure that creates existence, but rather an abstraction of the creation of the world from a perfect point before existence, from which existence arose. — Gus Lamarch

My personal worldview, Enformationism, also inferred a necessary abstract hypothetical world creator from the available evidence of the physical & metaphysical creation. Such a postulate is logically necessary because the Big Bang theory*1 describes an effect of some unknown prior cause.

I call that non-personal a priori force or power by various names, depending on the context. In an ontological discussion about the question of basic existence vs non-existence, I label the timeless power-to-be-and-to-become as "BEING". This concept is similar in some ways to Plotinus' "The One", which I sometimes call "ALL", or "The Whole". As a creative force, it is also akin to Plato's concept of LOGOS, in the sense of divine Reason, which was responsible for organizing Chaos into the living organism we call home : our physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) universe.

Since this postulated First Cause, "from which existence arose", is beyond the realm of empirical evidence, we can only project current circumstantial evidence back into the time before time, That's merely an extension of the logic by which Cosmologists inferred from the current expansion of space & time that all matter was originally impossibly condensed into a point of pure potential -- that I liken to a computer program. Unfortunately, most philosophical descendants of Abraham identify that Cause with the God of the Bible or Koran or Book of Mormon. But I think of it as more akin to the abstract Brahman (ultimate reality) of Hindu philosophy. However, a more up-to-date name for the creator of our information processing world may be The Programmer. :nerd:

*1. the Singularity, "perfect point", was like a cue ball struck by the cue stick (action) aimed & manipulated by an intentional pool shooter. The arrow of Time is like a rack of balls going in a general direction determined by the aim of the shooter. Their movements may seem random, but we can trace cause & effect back to a single input of force

Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute? — Gus Lamarch

I think it's due to a physical bias in Science, the belief system of Materialism, which is blind to the power of Mind (Culture, Memes) to influence the material world. I'm not talking about spoon-bending Psychokinesis, but about Energy. Matter is a form of Energy, which in turn is a form of metaphysical EnFormAction (causal information). And this non-physical "non-sense" is derived by a chain of logic in the Enformationism thesis. :cool:

Then of course you have other philosophical ideas that perhaps are a bit more intriguing relative to consciousness: — 3017amen

Really good video. Thanks.

If both the One and God are concepts of the absolute, in fact, it is understandable that they are confused and used interchangeably by most people. But the point is that the One is almost like an immutable and "objecty" concept - for lack of better terms -, while to God, a certain personality is commonly applied to this transcendental figure.

If both are absolutes, what makes them unique when in comparison with each other?

The arrow of Time is like a rack of balls going in a general direction determined by the aim of the shooter. — Gnomon

Good stuff. The question that may be relevant, is whether the " arrow of time " incorporates the concept of infinity. The reason I think we would want to somehow reconcile that is because in cosmology infinity seems to be associated with the absolute (Cantor's Absolute).

Enformationism — Gnomon

Interesting, if you'd like, please dm me. I'm really curious about it.

I call that non-personal a priori force or power by various names, depending on the context. In an ontological discussion about the question of basic existence vs non-existence, I label the timeless power-to-be-and-to-become as "BEING". This concept is similar in some ways to Plotinus' "The One", which I sometimes call "ALL", or "The Whole". As a creative force, it is also akin to Plato's concept of LOGOS, in the sense of divine Reason, which was responsible for organizing Chaos into the living organism we call home : our physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) universe. — Gnomon

The world then would be made of two existences? The physical (material) and the metaphysical (mental)? Correct me if I'm getting it wrong.

However, a more up-to-date name for the creator of our information processing world may be The Programmer. — Gnomon

What?

*1. the Singularity, "perfect point", was like a cue ball struck by the cue stick (action) aimed & manipulated by an intentional pool shooter. The arrow of Time is like a rack of balls going in a general direction determined by the aim of the shooter. Their movements may seem random, but we can trace cause & effect back to a single input of force — Gnomon

This intrigues me, since the concepts are practically identical, however, one of them is evidenced by scientific studies, while the other is founded on metaphysical search. Perhaps the Big Bang is just the material evidence of the One? I cannot say.

I think it's due to a physical bias in Science, — Gnomon

I can agree with that. I feel that we are leaving aside one of the truths of this existence for the sake of the material. Perhaps one needs the other - Metaphysical and Material -?

both are absolutes, what makes them unique when in comparison with each other? — Gus Lamarch

I'm not sure this will answer the question but it may be one starting point (among others). Consider mathematical truths being both objective truth and abstract metaphysical truth. Whether it's the underlying laws of gravity or an engineering formula that describes a structural beam, both are related to objective abstract truth's.

Are those truth's metaphysical? Well yes they are because they describe physical things in a non-physical way.

Or in cosmology, as it relates to consciousness, how does one perceive time itself? The feeling of time passing surely is not exclusive to physical phenomenon. We can see many objects changing, but can we see our own perceptions of time changing(?). Whether it's time-zone travel, relatively, or time passing quickly when you're busy, these things are not physical. Perceptions are both physical and metaphysical.

It may be a good time for Metaphysician Undercoverer to elucidate his theories on essences... . Is the concept of the Absolute some sort of essence from physical existence, independent, like mathematics?

Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. — Gus Lamarch

You'd have to prove that simplicity is possible, that it exists, and that it is greater than matter

Enformationism — Gnomon
Interesting, if you'd like, please dm me. I'm really curious about it. — Gus Lamarch

Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

The world then would be made of two existences? The physical (material) and the metaphysical (mental)? Correct me if I'm getting it wrong. — Gus Lamarch

No. The unitary world is a composite of physical and metaphysical Information. This won't make sense without a grasp of the Enformationism thesis. But it's similar to Spinoza's "Single Substance" concept of God. Modern science gradually grudgingly coming to the conclusion that everything in our world is a form of Causal Information.

Substance Monism : The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

What? — Gus Lamarch

The Programmer : The notion that our world is a mathematical Program processing information is a novel notion that is gaining traction in Physics and Cosmology.

Perhaps the Big Bang is just the material evidence of the One? I cannot say. — Gus Lamarch

Actually, the BB is a hypothesis. The physical world that emerged from that postulated creative act is the only "material evidence" of a Creator.

I feel that we are leaving aside one of the truths of this existence for the sake of the material. Perhaps one needs the other - Metaphysical and Material -? — Gus Lamarch

Yes. Modern Science began as a revolt against the dominant metaphysical myths (Theology) of medieval Catholicism. But they inadvertently threw out the metaphysical baby (Mind) with the mythical bathwater (man-made dogma). Even most modern philosophers are uncomfortable with discussing non-empirical metaphysical notions. However, by "metaphysics" I don't mean magic or ghosts or theology, but the important non-physical aspects of Reality : Concepts, Ideas, Theories, Opinions, Beliefs. etc :cool:

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world. — Gnomon

This sounds like a cult to me, something that might come out of Scientology. I mean.... what?

If both are absolutes, what makes them unique when in comparison with each other? — Gus Lamarch

For the purpose of communication with non-philosophers, I sometimes use the term "G*D" with an asterisk to indicate an abstract "deity" as opposed to the traditional anthro-morphic white-bearded prayer-answering Santa Claus king in heaven. Unfortunately, most of them are not interested in the "god of the philosophers" : an unrevealed hypothetical abstract absolute explanation for our actual physical relative existence. :smile:

This sounds like a cult to me, something that might come out of Scientology. I mean.... what? — JerseyFlight

Fear not! There's no cult. There's only little old me. It's a personal philosophical non-religious worldview, based on modern science and reason, not on ancient scriptures and emotions. What's your worldview? :smile:

Is the concept of the Absolute some sort of essence from physical existence, independent, like mathematics? — 3017amen

That is a really good question. How could we test and visualize this through the physical-material world? Perhaps through a new theory that covers both the metaphysical and the physical? And if it is something like Plotinus' abstraction, that existence arose from it, however, without the direct and indirect intention of it, how could we conceptualize it being that Plotinus already stated:

"Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

Metaphysician Undercoverer — 3017amen

@Metaphysician Undercover - show yourself!

As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world. — Gnomon

Oh, it is an attempt to stitch together scientific theory, with metaphysical abstraction. That's It? If so, it is really interesting, and in my view, necessary for an eventual intellectual revolution.

Enformationism Thesis — Gnomon

I'm going to read it, thank you.

The physical world that emerged from that postulated creative act is the only "material evidence" of a Creator. — Gnomon

The point is that if it is the concept of the "One" of Plotinus, it makes no sense to apply the notion of "God" to him because the creation of existence was not the result of his direct or indirect intention. The absolute of the One caused existence in a chain reaction of absolute - or perfections - smaller in scale. The One is not a God in the common sense.

Yes. Modern Science began as a revolt against the dominant metaphysical myths (Theology) of medieval Catholicism. But they inadvertently threw out the metaphysical baby (Mind) with the mythical bathwater (man-made dogma). Even most modern philosophers are uncomfortable with discussing non-empirical metaphysical notions. However, by "metaphysics" I don't mean magic or ghosts or theology, but the important non-physical aspects of Reality : Concepts, Ideas, Theories, Opinions, Beliefs. etc — Gnomon

I agree completely.

Unfortunately, most of them are not interested in the "god of the philosophers" : an unrevealed hypothetical abstract absolute explanation for our actual physical relative existence — Gnomon

Yes, the evolution of philosophy and science is increasingly proving that something is missing from the equation in relation to everything. My view is that metaphysics - as you have already said, concepts, abstractions, ideas, etc ... - is being left out in favor of a more intrisicaly causal perceptive answer.

This sounds like a cult to me, something that might come out of Scientology. I mean.... what? — JerseyFlight

Who needs Occam's, right? I ... don't even ... :zip: :roll: :shade:

Really good video. Thanks. — Gus Lamarch

You're welcome Gus!

How could we test and visualize this through the physical-material world? — Gus Lamarch

Through simple engineering formulas for say the design of a building, aircraft, xcetera, as well as computing the laws of gravity, relativity, xcetera.

Is that what you mean?

Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute? — Gus Lamarch

Clearly, "the absolute" is an ambiguous concept. Therefore the way that one relates to absolution is dependent on one's perspective. Notice that "absolution" means to be absolved, released from all guilt. But to be absolved requires that one first recognize one's sins. In Catholicism this is the process of confession and forgiveness.

In the op it appears like you seek to separate "the absolute" from any possible creative activity, rendering it complete distinct from the process of absolution. Then you propose an emanation, through which the perfect (absolute) gives birth to the less perfect, and you seek to absolve the perfect (absolute) from responsibility for this act of creating something less than perfect, by removing intention from this act. Then emanation is not a willing act of the perfect (absolute) from which things emanate, (the absolute being purely potential instead) but an act of the emanating things themselves, such that the imperfect things are responsible for their own imperfections, rather than the Creator being responsible for the imperfections. This circumvents the act of forgiveness, because the more perfect being, from which the less perfect emanates in a natural procession, is denied the capacity to produce something more perfect than itself, so that the imperfections are already given by an implied priority.

Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute? — Gus Lamarch

Because all of them are fuzzy

Then emanation is not a willing act of the perfect (absolute) from which things emanate, (the absolute being purely potential instead) but an act of the emanating things themselves, such that the imperfect things are responsible for their own imperfections, rather than the Creator being responsible for the imperfectio — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

Could that suggest that the unity of opposites principle is the energy/informational source of the emanate?

What puzzles me is that if the One possesses no attributes at all, what is it then? After all, a basic requirement for comprehension is attributes of some kind, right? Plotinus' One is verging on Zero (nothingness), the only thing keeping us from thinking that is Plotinus' insistence that the One is. All said and done, Plotinus' concept of the One is self-contradictory - it has no attributes at all, that's nothing, and yet it's talked about as if it's something.

Reminds me of Taoism - the Tao that can be named is not the Tao.

I thought the absolute one represented infinity?

I thought the absolute one represented infinity? — 3017amen

Infinity has an attribute - boundlessness. Plotinus' One has none.

Infinity has an attribute - boundlessness. Plotinus' One has none. — TheMadFool

I'm not following that TMF, what do you mean by none?

Early Christian thinkers such as Plotinus proclaimed that God is infinite, and that they were primarily concerned to demonstrate that he is not limited in any way.

in our quest for ultimate answers it is hard not to be drawn in one way or another to the infinite. Whether it's an infinite tower of turtles , and infinity of parallel worlds, an infinite set of mathematical propositions, or an infinite creator, physical existence surely cannot be rooted in anything finite. Otherwise how do things-in-themselves exist?

What puzzles me is that if the One possesses no attributes at all, what is it then? — TheMadFool

And just here you have handed and taken hold of the tail of the beast. It is the emptiness of the "science" of ontology as the supreme genus falling under no other genera. And the question of what it means, what it means to be, is an employment that keeps on giving and is never done, if you can find someone to pay you for it. Heidegger finally called it "being on the way."

The problem in the pursuit of the ineffable is that eventually one has to say, "I don't know." (If he could know, then it wouldn't be ineffable!) The wise man at this point - if not earlier - here turns out to attend his fields. weed his garden, keep his roof in good repair. The fool loudly proclaims, "Because I don't know, therefore I know!." And usually insists on telling us, and often expects to be paid for his "wisdom."

Really good video. Thanks. — Gus Lamarch

Gus!

Have you given any further thought to the video and how something that's absolute wouldn't require any outside/external data?

Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute? — Gus Lamarch

Because they’re all equally inapplicable. Your Perfection, for instance, is not applicable to **The One** because in order for it to be perfect there would need to be something imperfect to compare it to. It’s equally valid to claim that the almighty One is imperfect.

It seems to me Plotinus is merely trying to satisfy a perceived need by positing the existence of something, blessedly featureless and indistinct and therefore requiring no explanation, that would satisfy it.

Oh, it is an attempt to stitch together scientific theory, with metaphysical abstraction. That's It? If so, it is really interesting, and in my view, necessary for an eventual intellectual revolution. — Gus Lamarch

The Enformationism thesis is my contribution to the current desire among thoughtful people of good will, to reconcile the metaphysics of Religion with the physics of Science. After the Enlightenment era, the "miracles" of empirical Science gained more & influence over the public mind, even as the "miracles" of ancient Religion faded away. Hence those once-dominant institutions were placed on the defensive. But since the 1960s, the conflict between worldviews of Spirit & Matter has been escalating. Originally, the combat was simply Christianity versus Humanism. But the 60s brought Eastern & Pagan religious ideas into the mix, and resulted in the peace & love attitude of New Age. Since then, fundamentalist Christians declared war on both Scientific and New Age worldviews. In reaction to that politicization of religion, the Four Horsemen of Atheism fired back with Reason vs Emotion. Yet, I think we need both sides of human nature to be whole : Critical Thinking and Innate Feelings.

I'm going to read it, thank you. — Gus Lamarch

Very few people have actually read the full thesis, so they get an incomplete understanding of what it means for both religion and science. The theory began with the scientific insight that everything in our world is a form of Information (energy & matter & mind). But the implication of that notion had philosophical and religious implications, that I'm still working out.

The One is not a God in the common sense. — Gus Lamarch

Yes. Philo's "One" is more like Plato's "Logos" : spiritual but not personal. Ancient people had no concept of Energy, so they attributed all natural effects to intentional causes, and imagined those invisible powers in human form. Descendants of the Hebrews eventually abandoned their own history of personal gods (Yahewh was originally a weather god slinging thunderbolts), in favor of the more abstract notion of YHWH who was formless, eternal, and absolute. But the human desire for gods in familiar form, caused idolatry to continue even among the Jews. Later, their Christian descendants, began to imagine the human Jewish Messiah as the super-human Christ, and eventually fragmented the One God of Monotheism into a Polytheistic pantheon : Father, Mother, Son, Holy-Spirit, and a panoply of Saints. So, it's obvious that an abstract absolute unitary notion of deity does not appeal to the average person. That's why I call my hypothetical Enformer by the ambiguous name G*D : it's the "god of the philosophers".

My view is that metaphysics - as you have already said, concepts, abstractions, ideas, etc ... - is being left out in favor of a more intrisicaly causal perceptive answer. — Gus Lamarch

Since I am no longer religious, in any conventional sense, I could accept the Agnostic view of a godless world without any emotional affect or social censure . But, the theory of science-based Enformationism logically requires a First Cause with the creative power to Enform, and the mental intention to create a physical world. So, the thesis describes How the material world evolved from the immaterial Information (program) in the Singularity via series of Phase Transitions --- disorderly random changes (heuristic search) directed by intentional natural selection (algorithms) . But it does not reveal Why this abode of sentient creatures is characterized by both Good & Evil, both Positive & Negative, both Pleasure & Pain, both Cooperation & Competition, both Peace & Conflict. The tribal God of Abraham is often lauded as a loving Father, but is also described as commanding Old Testament genocides, and of planning a post-apocalyptic hell-fire for infidels. Why, why, why???

That's why the BothAnd Blog continues to search for answers to ultimate Why questions. :nerd:

BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page2.html

The problem in the pursuit of the ineffable is that eventually one has to say, "I don't know." (If he could know, then it wouldn't be ineffable!) The wise man at this point - if not earlier - here turns out to attend his fields. weed his garden, keep his roof in good repair. The fool loudly proclaims, "Because I don't know, therefore I know!." And usually insists on telling us, and often expects to be paid for his "wisdom." — tim wood

:lol: :up:

On a serious note, I've always been drawn to the ineffable. I'm one of those people who enjoy looking up at the night sky filled with twinkling stars, green forests shrouded in mist, the sandy landscape of deserts, the ebb and flow of the tides on the shores, and so on. These experiences, in a manner of speaking, get my juices flowing. I feel the same emotions when I'm face to face with the ineffable although I must confess most occasions that involved someone trying to, as someone once put it, eff the ineffable have, on the whole, been instances of beating around the bush - what else can be done? Nonetheless, sometimes, and such times are rare, I find myself catching fleeting, nebulose glimpses of what I suppose are inexpressibles, ineffables. Quite possibly this has more to do with the merits of beating around the bush than anything substantive about so-called ineffables.

I'm not following that TMF, what do you mean by none?

Early Christian thinkers such as Plotinus proclaimed that God is infinite, and that they were primarily concerned to demonstrate that he is not limited in any way.

in our quest for ultimate answers it is hard not to be drawn in one way or another to the infinite. Whether it's an infinite tower of turtles , and infinity of parallel worlds, an infinite set of mathematical propositions, or an infinite creator, physical existence surely cannot be rooted in anything finite. Otherwise how do things-in-themselves exist? — 3017amen

My remarks pertain to one specific idea, the so-called One of Plotinus. The absence of any attribute is the very definition of nothing. The One is, if it is, as claimed, devoid of any and all attributes, identical in that sense to nothing. If Plotinus has a something else on his mind when he provides this description of the One, he needs to show how the One isn't nothing.