No. QFT is the most precise physical theory to date and it is not "empirical". In fact, empiricism is merely human scale, it's too anthropocentric, especially since planck scales and relativistic scales are where all the (currently) 'fundamental' physics happens.

Hummm, then how do we establish if something is logic or not?

I don't understand the question.

Hmmm... hard for me to express myself on this one.

You said 2+2 can be 6 in maths. But in reality, if we take 2 objects and we add another 2, we always get 4, not 6. So even if we could in theory obtain 6, the only possible reality is 4. But if we somehow do obtain 6 in the real world by adding two more things next to other 2, do we jump to the conclusion that 2+2=6, or we conclude that there is something hidden in our experiment that we hadn't thought about before and 2+2 will always be 4 in the ''happening world''?

How can we deduce if 2+2 =4 is logical or not?

I think I've lost my inspiration. If my questions still make no sense, please give me a few days to formulate them the right way.
Thanks!

No worries. I'll be around.

Ok, but until then, even if in maths we can find a way to obtain 6 from 2+2, in reality we always obtain 4, right? So in Spinozism, that which 2+2=6 is inadequate.

"2+2=4" because of the rules of arithematic. Change the rules appropriately and you will get "2+2=6". You're missing the forest for the trees again, Eugen, by overthinking an example and taking it out of context. "In reality", valid inferences always entail truths according to the rules and axioms of the system we're using iff the inferences are valid (Spinoza). Eliminate e.g. the castling-rule in chess and chess matches can still be played but differently.

I thought about things more and decided to come back with probably one of the last sets of questions:
1. Logic predominates in Spinozism - can we say that logic is the most fundamental in his vision?
Everything that is logical exists and everything that is illogical does not exist. Correct?

2. Do we have an infinity of laws of nature and things of nature?

3. As regards the free will, if there is no causal relationship between mind and extension:
A. would everything have happened the same even if the mind had not existed (for example I would have written this O.P.)?
B. would everything change and the world would look different if the mind did not exist?

Thank you!

↪180 Proof I thought about things more and decided to come back with probably one of the last sets of questions:
1. Logic predominates in Spinozism - can we say that logic is the most fundamental in his vision? — Eugen

Yes.

Everything that is logical exists and everything that is illogical does not exist. Correct?

Logic is everything, or all there is. Whatever is "illogical" only seems so due to what Spinoza calls our "inadequate ideas" or "imagination" (i.e. first kind of knowledge).

2. Do we have an infinity of laws of nature and things of nature?

Sub specie aeternitatus (from the perspective of eternity), Spinoza claims that that is necessarily the case.

3. As regards the free will, if there is no causal relationship between mind and extension:
A. would everything have happened the same even if the mind had not existed (for example I would have written this O.P.)?
B. would everything change and the world would look different if the mind did not exist?

A. The Attribute of Thought (mind) is real, or constitutes Substance necessarily according to Spinoza in section I Of God and, therefore, cannot not "exist" – from the perspective of eternity. Why? Because the Attribute of Thought (mind) is not contradictory, or ruled out by Logic; and everything is – belongs to – Logic.

(And yes you would have written the OP because the conditions which determined that you 'freely chose' to write it necessarily obtain; choosing – willing – seems "free" only in so far you are ignorant of, or have "inadequate ideas" about, the [INTELLECTUAL, or active rather than passive (see sections III & IV)] causes and conditions that have determined the choices you make, which are "free" to the degree you – in my words – deliberately affirm them.)

B. This question makes no sense in Spinozism for the reason reality necessarily could not be any other way than it is in so far it is logically non-contradictory. In other words – my words – whatever is possible is necessarily real (i.e. belongs to Substance or exists as an effect (i.e. mode) caused by the real (i.e. Substance).

Thank you!

Don't thank me yet. I suspect your questions, Eugen, aren't done with either of us ...

Don't thank me yet. I suspect your questions, Eugen, aren't done with either of us ... — 180 Proof

I'm neither at war, nor fight. I'm just trying to obtain all the information I need before drawing the final conclusion.

Well, then, you're asking the wrong person if it's information you need for reaching a conclusion about Spinozism. You need to study Spinoza's work with the aid of a few (at most) secondary scholarly sources. I don't know what any conclusion on any matter is really worth without deriving it directly from the source. I only speak for myself, not Spinoza. Caute:flower:

You're being very helpful, really.

So far I have drawn the following conclusions from Spinozism. Please let me know if they are correct.

1. Logic is fundamental, and everything that is logical to exist exists due to infinite nature, but everything that is illogical does not exist. From logic, we obtain an infinity of laws of nature - from laws we obtain concrete things from nature that are 100% subject to the laws of nature.

2. There are no things that break the laws of nature.

3. Regarding consciousness - there is a law that is logical and says that consciousness is the complexity of the mind. Basically, it is a law that allows emergence, but at the level of nature, it is nothing new, because the law precedes the emergence itself. It is like saying a chess player didn't invent a new move, because the move was already there when chess rules were made.

4. Simple minds have no consciousness, complex minds are consciousness. - No panpsychism, no combination problem

5. There is no causality - the mind is not dependent on matter, and vice versa. - No materialism, no hard problem

More or less, not precisely, correct over all; but #4 & #5 are completely correct.

I think that the unbridgeable gap between us consists in the radically different vision that we have, and that somehow starts from consciousness: I don't think that consciousness can be obtained from something without consciousness. I hope that in Spinozism I will find concrete explanations for the opposite opinion, but I have not found them yet.
You believe that consciousness can arise from something with 0% consciousness, thus Spinoza makes sense. But for me, a law of nature that says that elements possessing 0% consciousness can give birth to consciousness is not logical yet. However, things could change and I could be convinced of Spinoza's metaphysics if:
1. It would explain exactly why I am wrong, that is, why the law by which things without consciousness form consciousness is logical. It seems illogical to me, but an explanation in this sense might convince me. Is there an explanation in Spinoza's work?
2. It would explain exactly how he knows that there is a law of nature in which complexity is consciousness. It seems logical to me as well that simplicity is consciousness. Why consciousness = complexity, but consciousness differs from simplicity. Is there an explanation for the form of this law?
3. He would explain how he came to the conclusion that these are the laws of conscience and not others. Is there such a thing in his work?

Maybe what you’re trying to reconcile Spinoza with is evolution?

Definitely not. My point was made very clearly.

1. It would explain exactly why I am wrong, that is, why the law by which things without consciousness form consciousness is logical. It seems illogical to me, but an explanation in this sense might convince me. Is there an explanation in Spinoza's work?
2. It would explain exactly how he knows that there is a law of nature in which complexity is consciousness. It seems logical to me as well that simplicity is consciousness. Why consciousness = complexity, but consciousness differs from simplicity. Is there an explanation for the form of this law?
3. He would explain how he came to the conclusion that these are the laws of conscience and not others. Is there such a thing in his work? — Eugen

You believe that consciousness can arise from something with 0% consciousness, thus Spinoza makes sense. — Eugen

I've not stated what I "believe" about consciousness so this statement is, at best, unwarranted.

I've studied Spinoza's writings for decades and that has most to do with why he makes sense to me. Nowhere does he claim, as I and others have repeatedly pointed out, that "consciousness can arise from something with 0% consciousness"; again just a strawman on your part.

Is there an explanation in Spinoza's work?

No. Spinoza is a philosopher, not a scientist. He reflects on a logic-derived conceptual system and does not construct and propose 'experimental tests for explanatory hypothetical models of phenomena'. More incoherence on your part, Eugen, expecting a philosopher to do with philosophical speculation what cannot be done – namely, "explaining" matters of facts (e.g. "consciousness" in the human brain-CNS) – Spinoza being no different than any other metaphysician.

As for the rest of your post, the answer is the same as it's always been from the start: study Spinoza for yourself in his terms and historical context, according to his stated concerns, and with the aid of a few secondary scholarly sources. If you can put your own anti-physicalist/anti-materialist/pseudo-scientific biases, or dogma, aside while doing so, then you might come away with the recognition that you have been asking the wrong questions of the wrong source(s) all along, as you still are. Maybe, through the process, you'll even become intellectually honest enough to actually learn some philosophy from Spinoza too (but I doubt it).

Anyway, apparently you've come as far as I can take you, Eugen, so with this post I leave you to the tender mercies of those willing to be more patient and indulgent than I'm no longer willing to be. Take 'my interpretation of Spinoza, my metaphors & analogies, my paraphrases and recommended books' (on this thread) with a pinch of salt and make of them what you can. Good luck with all your 'panpsychist' titling at windmills.

"consciousness can arise from something with 0% consciousness"; again just a strawman on your part. — 180 Proof

No strawman. He doesn't state it, of course, but in his metaphysics the substance is not conscious. So consciousness truly arises from something that has 0% consciousness. 1 (0%) +1 (0%)+...+1(0%) = 100 (0%) in my opinion. There's no counter-argument in his work.

Spinoza is a philosopher, not a scientist. — 180 Proof

- I don't need scientific proof, I just need an explanation for why it is logical. Now I get it, there is none. There's no common ground and there could be none in the absence of counter-arguments.

If everything reduces to statements like ''You get consciousness from unconscious things exactly like you get purple from red and blue", I will never be convinced.

If you can put your own anti-physicalist/anti-materialist/pseudo-scientific biases, or dogma, aside while doing so, then you might come away with the recognition that you have been asking the wrong questions of the wrong source(s) all along, as you still are. — 180 Proof

Just because materialism doesn't convince me doesn't mean I'm dogmatic or unscientific. Also, it doesn't mean I'm not open to change my opinions if logical/scientific proof is made.

If you can put your own anti-physicalist/anti-materialist/pseudo-scientific biases, or dogma, aside while doing so, then you might come away with the recognition that you have been asking the wrong questions of the wrong source(s) all along, as you still are. — 180 Proof

I'm simply not convinced why my questions don't make sense, and the more you say it, the more I believe otherwise.
1. The hard problem, at a more fundamental abstract level is basically the problem I've raised throughout my time here, ie you cannot obtain consciousness from non-consciouss stuff, you cannot reduce consciousness to the things that supposedly compose it.
I may have asked the wrong questions at the beginning, but it was not me making no sense. I had a big hunch there's no strong account for consciousness in Spinoza, no more than assumptions, but no explanations for my questions. You told me that there was something when in fact there was nothing.
2. I think they are simple questions. One can say that Spinosism is not about my questions, and that his view on consciousness was already established by denying my assumptions with 0 arguments. Yes, I admit that I could make a parallel between my questions and asking a Christian where in the Bible is a logical proof for how matter and soul could interact. The answer could be ''there is no such thing'', but not ''your question makes no sense''.
3. I've asked clearly for several times ''Is there an explanation for this or that or just assumptions?" and the rest of the guys told me that there are no explanations and that he basically just assumed all those stuff related to consciousness. You were the only one telling me otherwise.
4. There are many other experts in Spinoza who raise this problem and their questions are pretty similar to mine, so I kind of doubt I make no sense. And I'm being totally honest with myself.

Good luck with all your 'panpsychist' titling at windmills. — 180 Proof

I'm not a panpsychist (blind assumptions again) and I'm not sure anymore if Spinoza was one. I admit you've made a strong case against that.

Eugen, so with this post I leave you to the tender mercies of those willing to be more patient and indulgent than I'm no longer willing to be. — 180 Proof

I think my journey here has reached its end.
.

Dude, try to understand that I'm just trying to find answers. If I don't agree doesn't mean I'm this or that. With enough arguments, maybe I will change my mind, maybe not. Don't take it personally.

Take 'my interpretation of Spinoza, my metaphors & analogies, my paraphrases and recommended books' (on this thread) with a pinch of salt and make of them what you can. — 180 Proof

You've done a great job. You couldn't convince me otherwise, but you've earned my respect.

Thank you for all the great job you've done!

I think my journey with this topic has reached its end, unless some new information occurs and maybe change my view. Even if I'm not convinced by Spinozism (not yet at least), I had a great time with you guys!

Thanks again for all your explanations, I think you are well versed in this topic.

- Thank you for all the effort you've made. Super-comments, I need to re-read some of your explanations. You're a pro!

Thank you! You offered me one of the first and concise answers.

Thank you! Yes, I'm a real bot with IQ 3.000.000 and I hold the truth. I just wanted to play with your minds.

- You started a war against my person, but I have to admit you gave me some decent answers. So I guess thank you too... a$$#013!

Thanks for your effort, man!

↪Valentinus
Thank you! Yes, I'm a real bot with IQ 3.000.000 and I hold the truth. I just wanted to play with your minds. — Eugen

To be precise, I argued that you had insulated yourself from new information, not that you were robotically incapable of doing so.

I looked into Romanian translations of Spinoza and the options are not clear from an English speaker point of view. There are references to 19th century text but that is not clearly cited as a reference.

Is there a Romanian translation of Spinoza that you count worthy of reading?

I've search it. Yes, there is one :)

Who is the translator?
My searches of Romanian academy has gotten me interested in their different language studies.

I'm fascinated that the great novelist George Elliot provided a translation of Ethics that is said to be very rich.

I saw a book on a library and the translator is I. Katz.

[deleted]

[deleted]