Gnomon likey! :grin:I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.
Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).
The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself.
(I think Gnomon likes this approach.) — PoeticUniverse
The only problem with that notion is nailing-down the definition of "entanglement" in this cosmic context. Normally, the term is limited to quantum scale situations. Yet, in physicist Frank Wilczek's article below, it seems that Entanglement is a function of knowledge. So we can assume that it's somehow related to consciousness & awareness, specifically incomplete knowledge. Which leaves the actual "mechanism" as a mystery.The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse
I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.
I've saved a copy of the article to peruse when I have time. But my sense of the whole/part priority question is related to the polarized Top-Down versus Bottom-Up worldviews. Bottom-Up, as in Darwinian evolution, builds-up the whole from aggregation of parts. But the Top-Down view prioritizes the whole : e.g. a unitary Creator -- who exists as an undivided singular eternal whole, but then, in order to create a complex space-time world from its own Substance, begins to divide into smaller parts, that add-up to complexity within unity -- like an ovum turning into a bubbly blastocyst, and eventually into a enformed fetus. Since both processes can be found in reality, my worldview is based on the BothAnd principle. So, whether you see parts or wholes, monism or pluralism, depends on your personal perspective.I found this pdf: http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/monism.pdf — PoeticUniverse
an undivided singular eternal whole, but then, in order to create a complex space-time world from its own Substance, begins to divide into smaller parts, that add-up to complexity within unity — Gnomon
In my layman's philosophical thesis, what's "responsible" for initiating the "multiplicity from unity" sequence of events is Intention. That hypothesis is not based on any quantum field theories, but on a general comprehension of how a causal Agent (the unity) is responsible for its effects. My understanding of Quantum Theory is superficial. I know just enough to be dangerous. :cool:Seems that something in the unity needs to be responsible for what particular energy levels got chosen to make the 'particles' that would work or else they are the default. — PoeticUniverse
I have read some of Wilbur's intriguing books, but not that one. I tend to agree with most of his critique of Modernism & Scientism. But, I'm not personally inclined to go to the opposite extreme of New Age mysticism. Empirical Science is imperfect and incomplete, but it has the virtue of avoiding imaginary mystical magical answers to mundane pragmatic questions. So, my position is somewhere between those polar oppositions. :cool:Have you read this book? I just finished it. — Dharmi
our multiplex world — Gnomon
What is a whole, a One, without a boundary? — NOS4A2
Some dictionary sites give "imaginary" as a synonym for "mystical". But my primary concern for mystical worldviews is the synonym "occult". Labeling some aspects of the world as "occult", or "taboo" is a traditional tactic of religious leaders to "pull the wool" over the eyes of their followers. It implies that your puny human reasoning is incapable of learning some truths. Hence, you must take on faith that your guru or mystical guide has a direct line to God or to the Akashic Field.I reject New Age philosophy also, but I think it's closer to the truth than mere naive empiricism. I don't see how a mystical answer is somehow "imaginary." — Dharmi
Some dictionary sites give "imaginary" as a synonym for "mystical". — Gnomon
But my primary concern for mystical worldviews is the synonym "occult". Labeling some aspects of the world as "occult", or "taboo" is a traditional tactic of religious leaders to "pull the wool" over the eyes of their followers. — Gnomon
Hence, you must take on faith that your guru or mystical guide has a direct line to God or to the Akashic Field. — Gnomon
I don't trust anyone who claims to know something that is not accessible to mundane observation and reasoning (e.g .the scientific method). — Gnomon
But, I also don't take the word of scientific priests for "truths" that are so far over my head that I have to take them on Faith. "Naive empiricism" is also a form of child-like Faith in the preternatural objectivity of scientists . — Gnomon
A comical example of New Age faith in mystical abilities is the comical phenomenon of "Yogic Flying". Maharishi assured his Transcendental Meditators that his techniques could give them magical powers, such as the ability to fly. So, they took his folk tale literally, and sincerely tried to prove their faith by "flying" while in the cross-legged position. — Gnomon
FWIW, I like some elements of Eastern philosophy, but most Eastern and New Age religions are just as manipulative of naive minds as Western religions. :cool: — Gnomon
Naive Empiricism refers to the belief that scientist should try to be as objective and neutral as possible when studying something. Scientists should approach a problem with no preconceived expectations or assumptions which have not been previously studied and justified using the scientific method. — Gnomon
I'll preface by admitting that, like Socrates, I know nothing about such preposterous questions. But that doesn't stop me from guessing and speculating, for my own amusement. I don't expect anyone to take my guesstures as gospel truth. However, I have developed a personal worldview to take the place of the gospel of my youth. That idiosyncratic view of the world is Enformationism. And it's a mish-mash of philosophical bits & bytes from ancient history to modern futurism.How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning? — PoeticUniverse
How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning? — PoeticUniverse
The same way you accept anything as truth. You a) rely on the experts, the authorities and b) do the experiment yourself.
Is there any other way you have of finding out the truth? — Dharmi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.