I am confused by his belief in materialism because it seems to contradict his notion of Logos. — Gregory

I'm not very familiar with "The Axe", but I suspect that his notion of a single creative principle in the world is closer to Plato's "Logos", than to any Theist or Polytheist god-concept; His god-model may be similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which was both creative and materialistic. It's also similar to my own definition of EnFormAction as the creative principle of the world. Like many philosophers, we like to have it both ways : natural laws and freewill. :smile:

Anaxagoras :
Because of his focus on this principle, Anaxagoras has been credited both with an advance towards theism, the concept of a personal creator-god involved in human affairs, and with the first steps toward atheism, or the total disbelief in god or gods. In placing nous as the beginning of creation, Anaxagorous paved the way for believing in a single creative force, God. Ironically, his philosophical concept of nous also helped lead to a rejection of all gods, for the beginning of the world and creation could now be explained in scientific terms rather than religious ones.
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/DSB/Anaxagoras.pdf

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page18.html

“I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” ___Einstein

I like what you've written. It seems to me The Axe cut the Gordian knot by separating supernatural beliefs from natural one. For him, I believe, the universe is just like one massive brain, and we individuals only comprehend a small part of what it is. It's a rather comforting idea and reminds me of dinosaurs (maybe an archetype?). I think that not only Einstein, but a sizable amount of scientists believe this idea that universe is intellect. It makes more sense than saying the world is just numbers, and presents a clear picture better than going ahead and posting Ideas\Forms like Plato did, which did not have a a mind to contain them. Again, the concept im finding interesting here is a materialist one, wherein we (assuming there are not aliens) are the highest embodiment of matter's ability to think, and the matter that thinks is a unified whole (i.e. all the universe). I hope I'm not sounding circular

In addition, I was wondering if AI would be able to do philosophy in any way. If there are certain human sparks that alone let's it philosophize, could the artificial intelligence truly ever be greater than us?

1) most fundamental is 1=1
2) next is if A is B, and B is C, than A is C

3) then there is the 1+3=4 and the Socrates is a bachelor syllogism

AI can go further than this, but can it mull, can it relfect? Can it mix poetry with philosophy and make mysticism. I think we just are the apex dinosaurs in our epoch of history

Last comment: matter is said to be included in the category of energy. Both are said to have information. Information seems much closer to the Intellect of Anaxagoras and Spinoza than the Will of Nietzsche or Schopenhauer. The latter two sound more poetical and mystical and less scientific in what they said

Information is the right track to be on.

Remember also that all programs are just data being executed, and all data is executable in principle, most of it just does nothing interesting when executed.

Maybe there is will and intellect in everything, and there are still particular objects although they parts of the universe as a whole. What you guys are proposing (i.e. information/data as the basis of the universe) seems to me to be modern pythagorean Platonism(i.e. idealism). Information is something you garner from the world, so it is completely mental. The world is made of energy, which produces force and matter. The thesis by that one writer "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Science" may seem to support your position, however I believe in the "law of vibration" wherein everything is energy and the psychology and wishes of the scientist actually manifest themselves in their work

I think computers have made people very confused

however I believe in the "law of vibration" wherein everything is energy — Gregory

Yes. In conventional physics, all material things are stable forms of dynamic Energy. But in cutting-edge Information Science, Energy itself is a physical form of metaphysical Information. This new understanding of the physical world is the basis of the Enformationism thesis. It combines some elements of Platonic Idealism with the modern understanding of physical Realism. :nerd:

mass-energy-information equivalence : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Energy Matter Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

PS__Energy is indeed imagined as vibrations in empty space, which is a paradox. Instead, I think Energy is an on/off series of possible/actual potential. In reality, it works something like Morse code to convey Information from one place to another. wink-wink :joke:

Maybe there is will and intellect in everything, — Gregory

No. In my view, there is Information in everything. Will and Intellect are emergent functions of highly developed brains. :smile:

The only science book I've read lately is The Toa of Physics, where it's argued everything is inter-connected energy. This energy has a weird relationship with nothingness. I really know nothing of computer language is regards to natural philosophy, but thanks for the information (wink)

possible/actual potential. — Gnomon

You don't use these terms in the Aristotelian sense. I can tell. I was trained as a Thomist from an early age. So we are coming from difference perspectives. Hope you have luck with your enterprise :)

possible/actual potential. — Gnomon
You don't use these terms in the Aristotelian sense. I can tell. I was trained as a Thomist from an early age. So we are coming from difference perspectives. Hope you have luck with your enterprise :) — Gregory

Yes. I also don't use the term "Information" is a strict Shannon sense. And my thesis is based on modern Science instead of ancient Philosophy. But it agrees substantially with both Plato's Idealism, and Aristotle's Realism. As it turned-out, my personal worldview is compatible with some elements of both Materialism and Spiritualism. But, I am neither a Materialist, nor a Spiritualist; neither an Atheist, nor a Theist.

I was not deliberately copying Aristotle's analysis of Potential & Actual. I was merely following the logic of my insight into Information theory (all is information) where it led me. And I was not raised on Scholastic Theology. Ironically, I am currently reading Aristotle's Revenge, by philosopher Edward Feser. It seems to be a modern update of the Thomistic interpretation of Aristotle's worldview. He immediately gets into an analysis of Actuality and Potentiality. And so far, it seems to fit my own understanding of how Eternal Potential is converted into Temporal Actual. Unlike a lot of philosophical and theological writing, Feser's book is quite easy for an untrained amateur like me to read.

What differences do you see between Aquinas' usage and mine? I was not trying to defend any particular theistic doctrine, but my current view of the hypothetical G*D is deistic. What I call BEING (infinite potential) or LOGOS (the organizing force in evolution) serves as the First Cause and Enformer/Creator of our space-time world. But I remain agnostic about any personal properties. Anything I say about what preceded the Big Bang is speculative. I'm still developing the Enformationism thesis in the blogs. And I'll probably add a post after I finish this book. But it's over 450 pages, so it may take a while. :smile:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

I am familiar with Feser's book, yes. You may be interested in the old school of Ontologism (search Google for the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this). Malebranche is also interesting (see Stanford Encyclopedia for entries). These ideas have been considered fringe for hundreds of years in Catholicism, until around the time of Benedict XV, when new schools of philosophy sprout up in France and elsewhere. I am personally a materialist, but keep some Hegelian ideas in my bag for ideas to mull over (since I don't pretend to know everything)

Aquinas was very opposed to the Platonists who regarded matter as somehow less than real. Sorry if my writing style in wonky lately

And so far, it seems to fit my own understanding of how Eternal Potential is converted into Temporal Actual. — Gnomon

A big problem here is that Aristotle's cosmological argument explicitly denies the concept of "Eternal Potential" as an impossibility. This is why the Christian God, and Aquinas' God is Actual.

Plotinus argues that the One is pure potentiality that doesn't act. God comes from that (for him)

A big problem here is that Aristotle's cosmological argument explicitly denies the concept of "Eternal Potential" as an impossibility. This is why the Christian God, and Aquinas' God is Actual. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I understand that Aristotle was not comfortable with Plato's Idealism. But my worldview combines Idealism with Realism. For all practical purposes, our world is as real as it gets. But for philosophical theoretical purposes, we must look beyond the material world.

For example, the Big Bang is accepted by most modern scientists as the First Cause of physical reality. But they were discomfited by questions about what came before the Bang? This is equivalent to Atheist challenges asking "who created God?". So, hard materialist scientists were forced to expand their worldview beyond empirical Realty, into the realm of theoretical Ideality, in order to imagine the eternal regression of Bangs that they called the Multiverse. Hence, their expanded worldview combined Realism with Idealism.

I don't know what Aristotle's opinion was on the concept of "Eternal Potential". But his ontology assumed a necessary Non-Contingent Cause. Which I would interpret as a non-physical, non-temporal, eternal potential. This is equivalent to the "Necessary Being" that I call BEING. But my notion of G*D is also Actual, in the sense that our physical world ultimately consists of metaphysical Information, which is the essence of both Matter and Energy. Hence, physical reality consists of non-physical god-stuff : Spinoza's Universal Substance. That may sound weird, but it's no stranger than the Quantum theory of Virtual Particles. :cool:


Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Ontological Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Virtual :
Traditionally, the term "virtual" meant possessing virtues or qualities apart from physical properties. In computer science, "virtual" refers to software apart from hardware. In Physics, "virtual" describes the mathematical or statistical state of a waveform in a field before it is actualized as a particle. A "virtual" particle is defined as . . . not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle."
The term “Virtual” in physics is analogous to “Spiritual” in meta-physics. In the Enformationism theory, it is equivalent to Qualia, apart from Quanta. The Quantum Mechanics term "Virtual" is equivalent to "Potential" or "Ideal". For example, virtual particles are merely mathmatical definitions with no material instances, until they are Actualized by an observation. Similarly, in Ideality, a Platonic Form has no physical examples until Realized by an intention. In both cases, the will of a mind triggers the transition from nothing to something.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

The Christian God is said to be necessary, not contingent. Therefore He wills the Good necessarily. But He is said to be free as well. Therefore He wills the Good necessarily and freely. I see no room
left in God for Him choosing with his nature the Good in the face of pain and suffering. Therefore
man has the ability to be greater than God! The idea of perfection which any man can imagine would be a being who chooses The Good in the face of infinite pain. The substance view of God that Aquinas makes is illogical, for how can a person be striving, working, fighting, doing, and acting in itself, if there never was an obstacle and never will be? A person can't just be those things.

As for Plotinus, he explains:

"It is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God." This is because the first reality (Potentiality/One) has no "ergon" (action), for him

So we have spiritual Actuality (refuted above), spiritual potentiality (defended by Plotinus), physical potentiality (defended by modern science), and materialism defended by me :)

I don't know what Aristotle's opinion was on the concept of "Eternal Potential". But his ontology assumed a necessary Non-Contingent Cause. Which I would interpret as a non-physical, non-temporal, eternal potential. — Gnomon

The point is that a potential cannot be a cause, only something actual can cause anything.

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D. — Gnomon

Notice that in your descriptive example, there are supposedly infinite possibilities which collapse into one reality, the reality given by measurement. But that measurement is an act, and the possibilities are not really infinite, it's just a misunderstanding attributable to the mind that measures.

Actually, it's still debatable whether a spiritual impersonal Form is effete. I should have included that in my last post

I wasn't making a judgement about whether the cosmological argument is true or not, so whether that's debatable is beside the point. That's why I didn't reply to your post.

The issue was whether Eternal Potential is consistent with Aristotle and Aquinas, as Gnomon claimed. It is not. The idea of Eternal Potential is what the cosmological argument claims to refute.

Gnomon was considering whether Enformation is consistent with Aristotle. Why not let him make up his own mind? These issues can be as nuanced as distinguishing between individualization and identity. What exactly is potential, whether it be spiritual or material? Isn't the point that we can't know it's nature? Try chewing on fog. You'll get nowhere

Why not let him make up his own mind? — Gregory

What kind of nonsense is this? Isn't the point to posting and participating here, to get other people's ideas? Try chewing on that.

It's just that Thomists are dogmatic about actuality and potentiality. They think they've figured it all out

Potentiality is a less-than-numerical unity

Stephen Hawking thought that time goes back from 1 through the decimals until it is pure potentialy. Zero is not a limit. This reminds me of beer commercials for some reason. Ideas of infinite, finite, contingency, necessity, actually, and potentiality are not easy topic. Thomism is one school out of many Scholastic schools, which are all a small part of philosophy

The point is that a potential cannot be a cause, only something actual can cause anything. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Something must trigger that Potential into an Action to produce an Actual thing. In physics, the prior potential of a cause is taken for granted. But the First Cause must be activated either by Accident or by Intention. For my purposes, I assume that the First Cause is Actual in the sense of eternal BEING (the power to be and to create beings). That makes the creative act both the First and Final cause : both beginning and end of this world. I'm aware that mechanical Physics makes no allowance for Intention in Cause & Effect. But this is all about conceptual Metaphysics.

Notice that in your descriptive example, there are supposedly infinite possibilities which collapse into one reality, the reality given by measurement. But that measurement is an act, and the possibilities are not really infinite, it's just a misunderstanding attributable to the mind that measures. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure what you meant by "the reality is given by measurement". That may be the view from a human perspective within the creation. But I was talking about the view from outside this space-time world. The model I use is Plato's notion of eternal Chaos --- which I interpret to be all Potential, nothing Actual : i.e. BEING --- and it's conversion into Actual Cosmos. AFAIK, Plato didn't go into detail about the Demiurge who triggered that transformation from Unreal (Ideal) Possibilities into Real Actualities. So, for the sake of my hypothesis, I assume that the First Cause was an Actor, with the power to convert ideas into actions, and possibilities into realities, i.e. EnFormAction. :nerd:

Chaos :
In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Note : a modern name for the potential of Chaos is the Universal Field : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Demiurge : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

If you don't like the assumption of an Intentional Being to create our world ---
The Multiverse as Ultimate Being : http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835

The issue was whether Eternal Potential is consistent with Aristotle and Aquinas, as Gnomon claimed. It is not. The idea of Eternal Potential is what the cosmological argument claims to refute. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I'm not concerned to have Aristotle validate my notion of Eternal Potential. The Enformationism thesis will have to stand on its own legs. I'm aware that Aristotle was uncomfortable with Plato's "recondite" Ideals, but I find the notion to be necessary for metaphysical discussions, such as general concepts and ultimates.

As an axiom of my thesis, I assume that for something contingent to exist, there must be something non-contingent, and for something temporal to exist, there must be something non-temporal, i.e. Eternal. For me that something is BEING -- the eternal potential to be. :cool:

Cosmological Argument : On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Being Qua Being : So Aristotle's study does not concern some recondite subject matter known as 'being qua being'. Rather it is a study of being, or better, of beings—of things that can be said to be—that studies them in a particular way: as beings, in so far as they are beings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

But the First Cause must be activated either by Accident or by Intention. — Gnomon

I don't know what you would mean by "Accident" here. Isn't an accident a property of an intentional act? So the so-called First Cause would be an intentional act whether or not the outcome is the intended outcome or an accidental outcome.

I'm not sure what you meant by "the reality is given by measurement". — Gnomon

Your analogy spoke of "virtual particles", "that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation." So in this case, as you describe it, it is the act of measurement which gives reality. This cannot be a perspective from outside the world, because the description is of an interaction with the world.

The Forms could be the eternal potentiality of the One. Plotinus might say this. The Forms might necessarily come from God, or they might be created by God. They could also have existed independent of God and side by side with him. There are many ways of looking at it

There have been attempts to refute the Forms by saying there cannot be a perfect Form of mathematics. But like Hegel, Plato seemed to have an implicit dislike for mathematics, perhaps because he wasn't great at it. Plato thought math was outside the Forms and earthly because 4 is greater than 2 but smaller than six. So 4 seems to be big and small at the same time, an imperfection in Plato's eyes

My position is closer to Samuel Alexander's. Interpreting Anaxagoras as a materialist, I see his Logos as the mind that evolved into us, the apex of earth's evolution. Tossing in Schopenhauer, I see will and reason in everything, it all evolving towards greater consciousness. But this is all in a materialist sense. The most I am willing to reduce matter to is energy. Information? No. Something spiritual? Nop. When Schopenhauer says matter is incorpereal, I take that to mean energy. Every thing else is fairy wand imagination. The world is vibration