I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience. — 3017amen

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe if you give me an example of the kind of abstract structure you're talking about.

Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask? — 3017amen

I really don't understand.

I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience. — 3017amen
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe if you give me an example of the kind of abstract structure you're talking about. — T Clark

Thank you for asking. Here are a couple examples of the way I interpret 'abstract structures' in nature:

We know in structural engineering we have a mathematical formula that is used to design a given structure (beam, truss, concrete compressive tensile/strength's, etc.. etc.). Then we have obvious geometric formulas that can also describe the structure's aesthetic shape or its architectural design. And we also have in nature the existence of protons and electrons that are also 'described' (or even 'explained' to some extent) through the use of abstract mathematics. That means/method of using, mathematics itself is an "abstract structure"/language. Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things.

The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness. We have been discussing briefly the idea that human (sentience/religion and) intellect not only includes the aforementioned ability to run calcs., but also the foregoing abilities to ask questions concerning self-awareness. For example, we said we have this innate need to ask questions about causes and effects. (The metaphysical question of why do we ask why.) Or questions about whether there is a cosmological God or designer. Then of course all the other cognitive/behavioral science things having to do with human phenomena and sentience (love, wonderment, the Will, intention, Kantian intuition, ad nauseum). In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves.

To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... .
Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?"

Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask? — 3017amen
I really don't understand. — T Clark

Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... .

I had another thought/question. Back the poster POP (from my metaphysics thread), and his world view concerning emotions. We know that in sports, emotions cause action, and sometimes extra ordinary action. In that same way, if the world is indeed will and representation, is that not an emotional/intellectual intention of some sort(?) Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?

Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world? — 3017amen

Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable?

I think that using computers to analyze the mind/brain and the universe can be misleading in the sense that the brain does what it does and is different from a computer in many crucial respects, not least of which is biology.

But putting that aside, and getting to the post: it depends on the question asked and what domain of knowledge you want to elucidate. The deepest questions we can ask about the universe, which we can get some theoretically rich answers come from physics. So if properly posed, we may get some type of answer to these questions, not anything beyond that. Wheeler wrote about this topic in his "it from bit doctrine", except that he thought we could only get "yes"-or-"no"-type answers to these questions.

As we move up in levels of complexity, the questions we ask about the world may not have an answer. We may not know enough to ask nature the proper questions. So the proportional part of the question only arises if the questions we ask correctly capture some aspect of the mind-independent world.

I think that using computers to analyze the mind/brain and the universe can be misleading in the sense that the brain does what it does and is different from a computer in many crucial respects, not least of which is biology. — Manuel

Manuel!

Well let's NOT put that aside for the moment. In our finitude, we have a hardware operating system that has limited knowledge, if you will. Limited choices from which to choose. Yet those choices are there for us to uncover/discover. That is one distinction I was making. The other related to free will. In that context, we are only free to choose those questions that are innate/fixed to our hardware/software interrelations. ( ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.)

As we move up in levels of complexity, the questions we ask about the world may not have an answer. We may not know enough to ask nature the proper questions. So the proportional part of the question only arises if the questions we ask correctly capture some aspect of the mind-independent world. — Manuel

Hence my analogy to the finitude of human nature viz the cosmic computer. In other words, there are fixed limits to understanding also in the sense there may exist other possible worlds that have a completely different metaphysical language or logic outside the usual categories of human thought. A different level of understanding. We only know what manifests through the design of our own computer, not the computer itself. But that's an intriguing supposition of yours that requires more thought, thank you.

In the interest of time I will defer to generality here, but I think one of the implications I'm hearing is that there are still questions or propositions (synthetic a priori) that could be asked which in turn could "capture come aspect of the mind-independent world". And to that end, arguably, mathematics has its own sense of independent truth.

I like your post about Wheeler, more on that to come...

Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable? — tim wood

Using human thought as the only thing we have in this context, there are other 'abstract thoughts' that include things like multiverse theories, a di-polar God, etc...

I am not familiar with John Wheeler's ideas so I don't feel that I can talk about that really, but going back to your reply to my comment, I am curious about cognitive science investing religious experience. I really don't know where that might lead, but I would hope that it would not be too reductive. I feel that neuroscience is being given so much attention in philosophy, and I don't wish to dismiss it, but I am not convinced that it leads to all the answers.

I do find Kant's ideas on intuition as useful. Generally, I think that intuition is rather overlooked in philosophy and it does seem that reason is seen as the supreme principle.

Computer language is fine so long as one does not suppose the brain to literally be a computer, only in a different from. For clarifying purposes it's ok, but I'd be careful.

But yes, the topic of possible questions we can ask is intimately related to our nature. Technically speaking, the number of questions is infinite, but if we want answers with some depth to them, then meaningful answers will be constrained by our nature.

In that respect I agree entirely with:

in the sense there may exist other possible worlds that have a completely different metaphysical language or logic outside the usual categories of human thought. — 3017amen

And this point isn't stressed enough, I think. It's very important point.

Using human thought as the only thing we have in this context, there are other 'abstract thoughts' that include things like multiverse theories, a di-polar God, etc... — 3017amen

No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word.

No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word. — tim wood

Let's start with the fundamental definitions:

Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.

At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...

What is your justification for joining religion with natural/physical sciences? — tim wood

:up: That's where my brain locked up.

Instead of going there, why not deal with what's here? There is no context in nature, only nature itself.

Instead of going there, why not deal with what's here? There is no context in nature, only nature itself. — tim wood

I'm not following that. "no context in nature?" What's here, among other things, is Time.

Just so you don't loose sight of the subject matter:

No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word.
— tim wood

Let's start with the fundamental definitions:

Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.

At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...

To what end, for what point, toward what conclusion?

I'm not following that. "no context in nature?" What's here, among other things, is Time. — 3017amen

What makes you think time is in nature?

You might argue that what is in nature, is in nature, but even that becomes granular, looked at closely enough. That tree over there, surely that's in nature? And practically speaking, for one who likes trees, or seeks shade, or even lumber, of course it is. But are not all of these, and all that they are themselves founded upon, constituted of abstractions?

I do find Kant's ideas on intuition as useful. Generally, I think that intuition is rather overlooked in philosophy and it does seem that reason is seen as the supreme principle. — Jack Cummins

It's exactly the opposite situation in philosophy (East & West), and always has been, which accounts for the prevalence of e.g. (neo)platonic / esoteric-hermetic / idealist / anti-realist philosophies for millennia. So-called e.g. materialist / realist / pragmatist philosophies are the often unaknowledged metaphysics of e.g. scientists, engineers, physicians & political-economists. It's reason (i.e. Heraclitus' logos, etc), the skunk at the philoLARPing party, Jack, that gets "overlooked" by being mis/ab-used so routinely.

What makes you think time is in nature?

You might argue that what is in nature, is in nature, but even that becomes granular, looked at closely enough. That tree over there, surely that's in nature? And practically speaking, for one who likes trees, or seeks shade, or even lumber, of course it is. But are not all of these, and all that they are themselves founded upon, constituted of abstractions? — tim wood

Gosh, I really don't know what to do with that Mr. Wood, sorry. I mean I wish to continue the discussion, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say or argue (time not being part of the natural world/existence).

Maybe you could try articulating your point in another way, perhaps? Or maybe start with the definition of time itself?

Sorry, can't do your thinking for you. But you could try it for yourself. You suppose time in nature. Surely you must have some reason for so supposing. Is that not something you wonder about?

No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word.
— tim wood

Let's start with the fundamental definitions:

Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.

At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...

It is just such an interesting area, about those who emphasise the nonmaterial and those who emphasise naturalism. It interweaves philosophy in the mainstream and the esoteric. Part of comes down to questions of pure metaphysics, and some of it is probably connected to the social and political construction of knowledge.

You suppose time in nature. Surely you must have some reason for so supposing. — tim wood

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future.[1][2][3] It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions.[8]

Time has long been an important subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.[7][9] Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.[10][11][12]

Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][13][14]

The physical nature of time is addressed by general relativity with respect to events in space-time. Examples of events are the collision of two particles, the explosion of a supernova, or the arrival of a rocket ship. Every event can be assigned four numbers representing its time and position (the event's coordinates). However, the numerical values are different for different observers. In general relativity, the question of what time it is now only has meaning relative to a particular observer. Distance and time are intimately related and the time required for light to travel a specific distance is the same for all observers, as first publicly demonstrated by Michelson and Morley. General relativity does not address the nature of time for extremely small intervals where quantum mechanics holds. At this time, there is no generally accepted theory of quantum general relativity. [15]

Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units (SI) and International System of Quantities. The SI base unit of time is the second. Time is used to define other quantities – such as velocity – so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.[16] An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. To describe observations of an event, a location (position in space) and time are typically noted.

The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is. It does not address why events can happen forward and backward in space, whereas events only happen in the forward progress of time. Investigations into the relationship between space and time led physicists to define the spacetime continuum. General relativity is the primary framework for understanding how spacetime works.[17] Through advances in both theoretical and experimental investigations of space-time, it has been shown that time can be distorted and dilated, particularly at the edges of black holes.

Temporal measurement has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in navigation and astronomy. Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart. Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms (see below). Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human life spans.

There are many systems for determining what time it is, including the Global Positioning System, other satellite systems, Coordinated Universal Time and mean solar time. In general, the numbers obtained from different time systems differ from one another.

Is that not something you wonder about? — tim wood

Good point! Why do we wonder? What is its purpose? Evolutionary survival advantages?

Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things. — 3017amen

There are some who disagree, but for me, mathematics and natural laws are stories we tell ourselves. They have no independent reality outside of humanity.

The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness... In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves. — 3017amen

I don't see why you would classify the phenomena you listed as "structures." Also, I think "abstract things-in-themselves" is a contradiction in terms.

To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... . — 3017amen

As I said previously, for me, religious thought is just thought, so of course there is a connection between religion and human sentience.

Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?" — 3017amen

In a sense, anything described in human language is abstract. The only things not are things-in-themselves, or what I would call the Tao. As Lao Tzu wrote.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... . — 3017amen

It's a song.

if the world is indeed will and representation, is that not an emotional/intellectual intention of some sort(?) Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world? — 3017amen

Will and representation - is that Kant? I don't know what it means.

What is your justification for joining religion with natural/physical sciences? They are antithetical. — tim wood

Disagree with this.

Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?
— 3017amen
Is anything else possible? Or even conceivable? — tim wood

Agree with this.

Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things. — 3017amen
There are some who disagree, but for me, mathematics and natural laws are stories we tell ourselves. They have no independent reality outside of humanity. — T Clark

T Clark!

I see. No exception taken, except for the fact that if mathematics and natural laws are stories, are we living in a mystical, fictitious or abstract world of stories? I mean that both literally and figuratively.

The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness... In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves. — 3017amen
I don't see why you would classify the phenomena you listed as "structures." Also, I think "abstract things-in-themselves" is a contradiction in terms. — T Clark

I use the term from here: ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure-Simon Blackburn.

To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... . — 3017amen
As I said previously, for me, religious thought is just thought, so of course there is a connection between religion and human sentience. — T Clark

Should one wonder about causation then?

Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?" — 3017amen
In a sense, anything described in human language is abstract. — T Clark

I like that. Existence, for you then (as you described), could be simply abstract, not really real. Is that, in a sense, metaphysics? Or, is it some sort of Platonic existence where mathematical structures exist? Those questions seem rhetorical, but they're not. I'm just trying to piece together the rationale there... .

Thanks!

Schopenhauer