:up:

It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon

This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism.

Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). — Daniel Bonevac

I suppose scientists can be forgiven for their unwavering faith in science - it's got "so many things right", unlike religion. Nevertheless, we should be as skeptical about science as science is skeptical about other methods of gaining knowledge. Fairness demands it! :smile:

Death will come one day. I promise :) — I like sushi

:sad: So much to do, so little time.

Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism. — Agent Smith

To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.

However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. And that is the point the Creationists hammer on. Some modern theologians have given-up the outdated notion of special creation of each "kind", as described in Genesis. But, they still discern the necessity for an "intelligence", of some kind, to "design" the program of creative evolutionary progression. I'm no longer a theist, but I too, infer a logical role for a Programmer to map-out a scheme, whereby an almost infinite universe could be produced from the DNA-like information in a tiny, Planck scale, bit of potential energy & instructions for causing Matter & Mind to evolve over time, from almost nothing, in-the-beginning. The odds of that happening by Chance, seem more than infinite-to-one.

I understand that defenders of Scientism may feel justified, by Darwin's "Fact", in their dogged struggle against dogmatic Religious Creationism. But, my position is somewhere in the middle, between Cosmic Accident and Special Creation. The only way to know for sure how & why the world began & developed as it did, would require direct revelation from the Originator. I assume that's why various prophets, over the centuries, have claimed to be conduits for divine inspiration. But, I find their diverse & contradictory stories to be unbelievable, as the word of God. So, I have been forced to develop my own patchwork theory of creation & evolution, cobbled-together from bits & pieces of plausible information. It's a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact or theory. Yet, it serves my personal need for a comprehensive worldview. And it all comes down to one simple fact of nature : Information (the power to enform) is fundamental & ubiquitous in the real world. :nerd:


Evolution as fact and theory :
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Special Creation :
In creationism, special creation is a belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Glossary

Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. — Gnomon

Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. People using evolution as a creation story are wrong. Evolution explains diversity, not the question of what created life - abiogenesis - which remains a mystery. We know what the active ingredients of life are, but we are yet to determine how chemistry became biology. The first self-replicating molecule marks the beginning of evolution.

Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. — Tom Storm

Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.

Yet even that evolutionary cosmology ran into mathematical infinities in the minuscule Planck Time, near the creation event we now call the Big Bang. Even so, theorists like Allan Guth & Andrei Linde subdivided the BB era into even tinier fractions of a second. Yet, they still haven't reached the Holy Grail of explaining "something from nothing". All theories to-date stop short of the beginning-of-the-beginning : asymptotic to infinity.

So, the field remains open, even for philosophical conjectures. Such as where did the initial energy & laws originate? FWIW, my amateur summary of the phases of evolution is pasted below. And Life emerged in the middle, at step seven. Presumably, because the potential for Life was already programmed in the First Cause. But, by whom? :nerd:

Charles Darwin's hunch about early life :
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201110-charles-darwin-early-life-theory

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
The problem with inflation isn't the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=7df51ea1b45e

Phases of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies (consciousness)
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Start the clock of Time
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws (the evolutionary Program)
0. Infinity :
Omni-potence, Omni-science,?

Note --- Hume : "like causes like"
nothing in the effect that was not potentially in the cause
e.g Life from Life & Mind from Mind

Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion — Gnomon

But this warm puddle (or whatever theory one chooses) is not evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate matter. Abiogenesis may lead to evolution but evolution does not lead to abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis may lead to evolution but evolution does not lead to abiogenesis — Tom Storm

Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?

This notion of Causal Abstraction should be compatible with some hypothetical Mathematical Universe and Anthropic Principle conjectures. So, I assume the proponents must imagine that "abiogenesis" was originally an abstract mathematical-logical definition or algorithm of some kind. Of course, MUH is a controversial concept, and the only supporting evidence, so far, is logical consistency. So, I don't take it literally.

But something along those lines would answer some of the fundamental Origin-of-Everything questions. One of which is : how could any material object (not to mention any living thing) survive the holocaust of a Cosmic scale eruption of space-time-energy-laws?? Perhaps the big bomb was merely a mathematical abstraction itself. And we only imagine it in familiar terms of physical explosions, such as those in Ukraine. :smile:

Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. . . .
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". . . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
Note -- the virtual reality of the Matrix was a mathematical structure (simulation), that its inhabitants accepted as real.

Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. — Gnomon

The beginnings of life on earth are mostly irrelevant to my experience and I have a dislike of systems and theories. :smile: I am more concerned with what I am going to do tomorrow.

What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power".

That said, I've always wondered, when it comes to anything, anything at all, what defines genius, the ability to create complexity directly (e.g. creating humans fully formed) or indirectly, via small, simple, cumulative increments à la evolution? If I were to present to you two (computer) codes, one is simple but can evolve complexity over time and the other complex from the start, which is cleverer?

As for information being the building blocks of reality, I can detect no inconsistency; in fact we have proof of concept in the form of simulated universes e.g. as alluded to in The Matrix movies (re video games).

You might like this :point: Uncovering the codes of reality (Professor S. James Gates) [error-correcting codes]

Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. — Tom Storm

:up:

↪Gnomon
What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power". — Agent Smith

Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?

Based on the sub-quantum sciences and information theories, I have concluded that Potential exists in the same sense that mental Information (ideas ; thoughts ; meaning) exists : as Ideal Forms. And AFAIK, Meaning exists only in Minds. Although, probably to avoid confusion with humanoid Greek gods, Plato tended to avoid personal terms, such as "Mind", his "Ideal Forms" were clearly non-physical abstractions equivalent to ideas or definitions in a human mind. But he didn't specify whose mind, except to imply that his hypothetical impersonal Logos was the ultimate source of all mental attributes. Some, less scrupulous, later philosophers have interpreted his Ideal realm as the "Mind of God".

For the same reason, I refer to the Mind, in which the mathematical Singularity was conceived, by various descriptive but non-personal names -- beginning with Logos, which is indeed an imaginary "higher power". Materialists refer to the same hypothetical Ultimate Source of our orderly world with "invented" abstract models : Multiverse, Many Worlds. Yet, they are portrayed as mindless impersonal accidental systems of energy, matter, & laws. In which case, they have no explanation for the emergence of the non-physical non-things that are of highest importance to mortal humans : Life, Mind, Ideas, Meanings, Feelings, Reasons, Love, etc.

Our world does indeed seem to be self-organizing (bottom-up evolution), requiring no divine intervention to correct its course. Once the evolutionary process gets started, "it proceeds naturally". But, unlike pragmatic scientists, philosophers are also interested in Ontology (being). So, they ask impractical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing"? And Multiverse theories just take existence for granted, even though non-being is just as likely. So, the beginning of Being is an open question. Since my thesis is based on Information, I like to use computers as a metaphor for the real world. A computer program is self-organizing, and works from the bottom-up, from original algorithm to final output. And it requires an external Mind to build the computer, to input the algorithm, to define the problem to be solved, and to push the Start button.

So, like Plato, I try to avoid attributing personal attributes to an abstract concept, beyond my ken. I merely imagine a job description for the "Programmer" (the Intelligence, the Enformer), who input the Energy & Laws (the algorithm) to initiate the smooth-running & creative & progressive process that we call Evolution. :nerd:


Potentiality and actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note -- Potential exists as a mental concept, not a material object

What is the relation of Plato's Forms to things? :
For Plato, Forms or Ideals (eidos ; ideas) are essences or originals of qualities or things.

Because Plato managed to do something THAT NO BODY ELSE HAVE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS PLANET at least in his scale. . . . . Namely He spoke about the invisible abstract world without the use of advanced technology or through Deamons(Magic). . . .He described something that only advanced technology today can some times prove that exists. He spoke about the blue prints of this universe. He described the world of IDEAS a world that is stable in contradiction to our world where everything are subjected to degradation and death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-of-Platos-form-to-things
Note -- empirical scientists don't do essences; that is left up to impractical philosophers.

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential 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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Programmer vs Creator vs Recycler :
Admittedly, the hypothetical Cosmic Creator or Prime Programmer of this thesis is nothing more than a job description, and we can imagine a variety of office-holders to fill the prescribed roles. For those who prefer a transcendent ultimate entity, an unimaginable deity like Allah or Brahman would fill the bill. For others, more modernistically & humanistically inclined, a clean-cut white-haired Architect, as in the Matrix movie, might suffice to symbolize the Designer. Or for those who prefer a more abstract and impersonal concept, a Multiverse of eternally cycling energy, creating a variety of material forms out of nothing more substantial than the power-to-enform, might sound more scientific. But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality. Which of these role-models would best suit this new worldview for the 21st century, wherein Reality is founded upon immaterial yet potent information?
BothAnd Blog, post 4

Self‐organization is a core concept of Systems Science. It refers to the ability of a class of systems (self‐organizing systems (SOS)) to change their internal structure and/or their function in response to external circumstances.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_475
Note -- SOS are able to evolve to suit changing environments. But they must be designed to do so. Self-organization doesn't happen accidentally. Presumably, what Darwin called "Natural Selection" is a programming function, like a "subroutine".

These type of questions ignore basic facts about Science.
Science's philosophical backbone is that of Methodological Naturalism.(MN).
MN is not a worldview but an epistemic acknowledgement of our methodological and observational limitations. Science produces Descriptive Frameworks within the limits of our methods even if its metaphysics might include hypotheses on the ontology of a phenomenon. The "end product"/knowledge is always a description not a metaphysical assumption.
As long as god(s) or any other superstitious claim remain unobservable then science will not be able to provide a description of the alleged cause.
We as thinking agents created this tool called science in our effort to keep "magical explanations" away from our epistemology. We achieve that by producing sound arguments (verified premises) for every claim we accept as knowledge.
Trying to reconcile those two things(god and Science) is like valuing fallacious arguments.
So there aren't any scientific grounds for claims that are unfalsifiable, untestable and unobservable.

:up:

I like what you did there. Declare a variable (x) and delineate its functions (job description). The audience is free to assign any value to x. God, Chance, Alice from Wonderland, Dracula, whathaveyou. When you explain it, it seems so obvious, but then it isn't exactly as plain as the nose on your face. :up:

Have you ever considered that you could be, by limiting yourself to a binary system (for vs. against), alloying the two belligerent sides on any issue, you could very well be committing the false dichotomy fallacy or the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy.

For instance, in the debate between atheism and theism, is it possible that, instead of trying to unify the two into a whole, you could reject both and contemplate on a third alternative which is neither theism nor atheism, and not some amalgamation of the two (the middle), but something else entirely. Have you come across Nagarjuna's terralemma?

First there is the problem of whether God's power comes from him having access the incredibly advance technology or if it through some kind of "magic", — dclements

Though we don’t typically consider it “magic” I think the universe offers several phenomena or qualities which I would argue are as close the the term “magic” as one can get.

The Newtonian laws of thermodynamics for example: energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another. The idea of “immortality” or “invincibility” underpins physics and we seem to just take this as a fact without really delving into just how bizarre that is.

Why can’t we destroy energy? Why can’t we create it? If it truly is invincible how did it come to be? How is it both matter and that which acts on matter? How can energy be conscious of itself through living systems? Energy must be omnipotent as it is all degrees of the ability to do work, it’s omnipresent because it cannot be in isolation from itself - information is always connected, there is no place in the universe where energy doesn’t occur, it’s omniscient in the sense that it is the means by which all information occurs - the change, the motion, the A the B and the transitionary state between A and B. It is fundamental to the existence of everything and at the same time “is” everything.

Even space and time cannot be removed from the concept of energy as without energy time could not pass and without space, energy has no location, no dimension in which to change between its various forms - as matter, or photons or anything in between. It creates order and chaos. Sounds pretty “godly” to me.

I agree that a personification of god - especially as a old wise man - is not at all necessary nor particularly useful but it doesn’t change the fact that humans are energy. Energy describing and interpreting itself.

well whether we need religion or not for our morality, at the very least benevolence as an idea (be it fundamental or simply a construct of humanity) is required for some semblance or organisation and order in human life.

Science is an incredible tool when poised toward our natural world in search for some common laws or principles as to how it works, However I feel it really falls short in describing the “self”, consciousness, ethics and moral or the innate feeling of good and bad we have collectively developed over the millennia - the need for compassion or empathy at all. After all objective scientific method cannot “objectify” a “subject” entirely without gross perversion of their individual rights - autonomy, safety, privacy etc

So what aspect of the the natural sciences allows for the existence of an ethics and moral so powerful it dictates scientific endeavour at every corner and penalises those which choose to ignore it?

It makes much more sense that a mechanistic, motion and chemistry based, dead, inanimate and purposeless universe governed by numbers and calculations and proportions should never give rise to anything that is irrational, emotive or “feeling” at all. And yet it does.
The best thing we have to describe morality and ethics is spiritual and philosophical writings not scientific papers. At least not yet.

I would argue the fine-tuning problem in cosmology leads to a disjunctive: either god(s) or a sufficiently large multiverse exist. Since the evidence for the existence of a sufficiently large multiverse is very limited, it is rational to choose the god explanation over the multiverse explanation.

Have you ever considered that you could be, by limiting yourself to a binary system (for vs. against), alloying the two belligerent sides on any issue, you could very well be committing the false dichotomy fallacy or the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy. — Agent Smith

Apparently, you have misunderstood the point of the BothAnd philosophy. In practice, the BothAnd principle considers all possibilities between 0 & 1. But tries to find the point of balance & harmony. It is intended to be an alternative to the typical unbalanced binary all-or-nothing Either/Or posture. But it doesn't prescribe a position in the exact middle of the range of views. Each observer will have personal reasons for emphasizing certain aspects over others. However, it is generally aligned with Aristotle's Golden Mean, and Buddha's Middle Path, and Taoism's Yin/Yang. As a rule-of-thumb, it simply means "nothing to excess". :smile:

Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

For instance, in the debate between atheism and theism, is it possible that, instead of trying to unify the two into a whole, you could reject both and contemplate on a third alternative which is neither theism nor atheism, and not some amalgamation of the two (the middle), but something else entirely. Have you come across Nagarjuna's terralemma? — Agent Smith

Yes, The BothAnd principle does seek a third option, which is the balance point between excess & deficit. I'm not familiar with "terralemma", but having to juggle four alternatives, instead of two or three, may violate Ockham's Razor. The term "BothAnd" merely acknowledges that most philosophical debates tend to force participants to defend one extreme or the other. By contrast, "moderation in all things" advises us to compromise, so as to avoid mutual annihilation, or a Mexican stand-off. :joke:

PS__This very thread illustrates the Either/Or policy. If someone proposes a moderate position, others will immediately attack it as-if it was a totalitarian rejection of their position. My stance on the god question is in the middle : Theism - Deism - Atheism. But a Theist would consider me to be an Atheist, and vice-versa.

Why Compromise? :
Like the philosophy of Pragmatism, the BothAnd principle, requiring accommodation to seemingly extraneous factors, could be dismissed as a weak policy of compromising eternal principles for temporary goals. But that sneer misses the point of taking the broader view, seeking harmony & balance instead of victory & triumph. So, the idea is to make practical concessions to the fact that each person, social group, nation, planet, and galaxy is but a small part of a greater whole.
BothAnd Blog, post 2

Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshiped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Would you say the following is an accurate characterization of your Both/And Principle.?

Theism: God
Atheist: No God
Deist: Yes God but not in the theistic sense & No God but not in the atheistic sense.

You want to, in a sense, incorporate the best of both (opposing) worlds, that's what we recognize as the aurea mediocritas (the golden mean), in your quest to gain a complete understanding of reality. You need both halves (the yin & the yang).

---

However, as I've always been concerned about, doesn't your Both/And Principle violate 2 laws of logic viz. the law of the excluded middle and the law of noncontradiction (given a proposition p, either p is true or ~p is true but not the case that both p and ~p are true/false at the same time). As an illustration, either theism is true or atheism is true, but both can't be true and both can't be false. There can be no middle ground betwixt theism and atheism.

Sticking to the example of theism vs. atheism, once we get our hands on solid proof, either theism will be true or atheism will be true, neither can both be true and nor can both be false.

In other words, the Both/And Principle seems useful/applicable only in cases where we lack definitive, sound arguments to settle disagreements which includes most/all of metaphysics. That is to say your principle isn't actually about truth, but more about harmony.

---

Coming to what I suggested you examine, Nagarjuna's tetralemma, it also deals with, in my humble opinion, metaphysics. On the issue of God (say), it negates all possible claims within a bivalent logic (vide infra)

Where G = God exists, B = Buddha exists after death

1. God exists. . No!
2. God doesn't exist. No!
3. God exists and God doesn't exist. No!
4. Neither God exists, nor God doesn't exist. No!

The point is we can't discuss metaphysics for it's impossible to justify any claims we make therein (pure speculation is all
that we can manage). Nagarjuna's tetralemma (4-fold negation) then is designed to terminate all metaphysical discourse. By the way, Nagarjuna's tetralemma is known as the middle way because it rejects/negates extremes.

You want to, in a sense, incorporate the best of both (opposing) worlds, that's what we recognize as the aurea mediocritas (the golden mean), in your quest to gain a complete understanding of reality. You need both halves (the yin & the yang). — Agent Smith

Yes. However, the concept of BothAnd didn't come from ancient philosophy, but from my research on ubiquitous Information. Like some pioneering scientists, I concluded that the fundamental substance of Reality is not Dualistic (energy + matter, or mind + matter), but Monistic (it's all Information in various forms : mind + energy + matter + everything else). So, the essence of BothAnd is Monism. The "BothAnd" label is simply an indicator that truth is not polarized, but a continuum. :smile:

However, as I've always been concerned about, doesn't your Both/And Principle violate 2 laws of logic viz. the law of the excluded middle and the law of noncontradiction (given a proposition p, either p is true or ~p is true but not the case that both p and ~p are true/false at the same time). As an illustration, either theism is true or atheism is true, but both can't be true and both can't be false. There can be no middle ground betwixt theism and atheism. — Agent Smith

The "excluded middle" and "non-contradiction" rules are presuming that you have access to absolute all-encompassing Truth. But the BothAnd rule assumes that we humans are all limited to small bits & pieces of perfect Platonic Truth. That's why I compare it to Einstein's Relativity : the truth you see depends on your "frame of reference", your limited perspective. So, for us earth-bound truth-seekers, it's all "middle ground". :cool:

The point is we can't discuss metaphysics for it's impossible to justify any claims we make therein (pure speculation is all that we can manage). . . .
By the way, Nagarjuna's tetralemma is known as the middle way because it rejects/negates extremes. — Agent Smith

Since I consider Meta-Physics to be the sole purview of Philosophy, I wouldn't agree that we shouldn't discuss non-physical (e.g. mental) topics. What else are we going to talk about, the weather? Even so, we cannot make any absolute claims about non-verifiable or non-falsifiable bits of truth. Philosophy can only allow us to get "Closer to Truth". As the link below notes, despite our best efforts to "know the mind of god", philosophers, by "exploring the deepest questions" can only hope to improve their own personal understanding. Beware of prophets who claim to reveal the absolute Truth. However, the Enformationism thesis is intended to suggest a way to approximate a Theory of Everything.

The rejection of extremes is definitely akin to the BothAnd view. However, it's statistically possible that the balance point of Harmony could be at one extreme. For, example, a rule against torturing babies may be as far as possible away from Sadism. But such clear (radical) oppositions are rare. :nerd:

Closer to Truth :
the greatest thinkers exploring the deepest questions
https://www.closertotruth.com/

What's the Point of Philosophy? :
“It is suggested that the intrinsic point of doing philosophy is to establish a rational consensus about what the answers to its main questions are. But it seems that this cannot be accomplished because philosophical arguments are bound to be inconclusive,”
https://qz.com/1313616/whats-the-point-of-philosophy-a-new-philosophy-paper-says-there-isnt-one/

The Mind of God is a 1992 non-fiction book by physicist Paul Davies. Subtitled The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, it is a whirlwind tour and explanation of theories, both physical and metaphysical, regarding ultimate causes. Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."

The Enformationism thesis is a sort of Theory of Everything (TOE), in the sense that "X" is supposed to be the cosmic All, of which our world is a small part. But it is not a scientific model of reality, and it does not claim to be the absolute Truth. Instead, it is merely a framework for my personal under-standing of the enigmatic world I found myself wandering in, like a stranger in a strange land, as an unfledged babe. It's also a response to the babble of rival theories-of-ultimate-reality -- religious & scientific -- that only added to the mystery.
BothAnd Blog, post 11
Note -- "X" can be imagined as G*D, Logos, Programmer, Creator, The All, The One, etc. Sadly, as the part cannot know the whole, we may never know the mind of "X" for sure. But we can guess.

INFLUENCES ON PERSONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE

So,

1. Information is fundamental to your philosophy.

2. Your aim is to develop a framework or system that allows you to make sense of the world and not to find truth per se. Of course a theory of everything (ToE), your aim, would explain anything and everything and that's as good as knowing the truth if not the truth itself.

3. You don't deny that not all polarities vis-à-vis truth can be resolved by finding the middle ground (you gave an example of torture; some torture, the midpoint, isn't exactly what someone like yourself would be ok with). This, I suspect, is the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy I referred to in my previous post.

The long and short of it: You have a ToE and although perfectionist would easily find flaws in it, at the very least, it has a general applicability that you find satisfactory (for the moment).

Notice, I believe I've already mentioned this in my previous post, that the aureas mediocritas (the golden mean/the middle path) only applies in matters we're still in the dark about e.g. god and not in those we're certain of the truth. To illustrate, if I say diamonds are hard and you say they're soft, we can verify the truth by actually taking a diamond and checking if it's hard/soft. There's no middle ground between hard and soft for a diamond. Contrast that to a debate on God. Missing evidence to settle the matter provides the perfect environment for your Both/And Principle. In other words, your system is designed to make sense of and navigate our ignorance and what is it that we know the least about? Metaphysics, i.e. your Both/And Principle is tailor-made to do metaphysics and is, in my humble opinion, one of the best tools in a metaphysician's toolkit.

I'll leave you with a question: Can metaphysical claims be verified/falsified?

I'll leave you with a question: Can metaphysical claims be verified/falsified? — Agent Smith

No. Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. Yet, that's where Philosophy comes in. It picks up where Science leaves off. Science provides pragmatic knowledge about Nature, while Philosophy provides reasonable opinions about Culture (the human aspect of nature). By "reasonable", I don't mean absolutely true facts, but merely ideas, whose logic has been tested in the fires of well-informed disagreement, to remove the dross.

Being "well-informed" though, includes knowledge of how the physical world works, so you can tell the difference between a natural event, and a miracle. That's why Philosophers as far back as Plato & Aristotle doubted the actual existence of the metaphorically useful Greek gods. For example, Ari knew enough about the weather to understand that scary lightning occurred randomly, and not due to vengeful cloud-hopping storm-gods. But they still had to assume the "metaphysical existence" (being qua being) of natural-but-invisible causal principles. Yet, those postulated essences were not susceptible to direct observation, so they were placed in a sub-category, under Physics, of Meta-physics.

We no longer turn to his volume on Physics for information on physical questions. But 2500 years later, we still debate some of the non-physical topics -- such as substance, quality, quantity, and relation -- that he chewed-over in the second volume. He also classified four explanatory conditions — an object's form, matter, efficient cause, and teleology --- that are still applicable today. Nevertheless, philosophy is still not in the business of verifying natural facts. It can only use those ancient methods to separate reasonable beliefs from heart-felt opinions.

So, it's due to my own amateurish philosophical analysis, that I have let go of my childhood belief in the Abrahamic Yahweh-Jesus, and the human-edited & redacted scriptures that are presented as the inspired word of God. Yet, I have never been able to rationalize the existence of a contingent world without a First Cause of some kind. That primary, efficient, and final Cause is inherently Preter-natural, hence invulnerable to natural science, which must be satisfied with useful normal or natural facts. But meta-physical philosophy is not bound to physical facts, because it only seeks for logically necessary concepts. Those essential "truths" are Logically Verifiable, but not Physically Falsifiable.

So, no. Metaphysical claims cannot be "verified/falsified" by physical methods. But, they can be proven for logical soundness by rational methods. And prior assumptions, or degrees of belief, can be tested for probability via Bayesian statistics. But, yes. I do include a Creative Cause in my worldview, to at least theoretically explain the "something from nothing" (space-time from infinity-eternity?) issue raised by the scientifically plausible, but not physically provable, Big Bang theory. :nerd:


A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true. In Leibniz's phrase, a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100226735

Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural ; metaphysical
Note -- even Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are beyond the scope of physical verification.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Logical Verification :
A formal proof is a logical argument expressed in a logical formalism. . . .
In contrast, an informal proof is what a mathematician would normally call a proof. These are often carried out on a blackboard, and are also called “pen-and-paper proofs.”
https://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs1951x/static_files/main.pdf

:up: Your posts are definitely improving through time in my humble opinion. Just been reading this interview which I'm sure you will find relevant.

No. Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. — Gnomon

Factually wrong statement by Gnomon.
There is this thing called scientific hypotheses. Those who are verified are promoted to scientific theories, those who are falsified are discarded.
Obviously Gnomon ignores what "metaphysics" means and why all our hypotheses in science are Metaphysics. Science is Philosophy!

Here is a great talk by Richard Carrier on what is Metaphysics, what is Philosophy and what is pseudo philosophy.(supernaturalism).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ

Factually wrong statement by Gnomon. — Nickolasgaspar

Nick, I can save you a lot of time & effort to defend Atheism against Theism, or Physics vs Metaphysics, Science vs Philosophy -- however you frame your besieged belief system.

Just copy & paste all the replies to me from . I've heard it all before. But his, and I assume your, Binary worldview has no place for my personal non-polarized worldview. So, what I'm saying does not compute And my terminology has no place in your vocabulary. Therefore, your castigations bounce off me and return to you. Have a nice day. :smile:

So, the basic idea is that science has two components:

1. Description: How matter & energy behave, detailed in the laws of nature, some of which are mathematical and some of which, like in the biological sciences, are not. Newton discovered the law of gravitation but didn't have a hypothesis to explain why objects with mass "attracted" each other: hypothesis non fingo!

2. Explanation: Constructing hypotheses (educated guesses) as to why the laws of nature are the way they are. For example Einstein's theory of relativity explains gravity as just the warping of space around objects that have mass.

---

3. Metaphysics: Here we try to ask and answer questions about things science takes for granted: What is causality? What are space & time? What is existence? Etc.

The idea is not to make an empirical claim, which can be verified/falsified, but to analyze the conceptual schemata that science uses.

Am I on the right track or no?

Nick, I can save you a lot of time & effort to defend Atheism against Theism, or Physics vs Metaphysics, Science vs Philosophy -- however you frame your besieged belief system. — Gnomon

-None of the above is the subject of this discussion and of the questions I raised.
My point of objection is the inability of people to distinguish valid philosophical questions and topics from pseudo philosophy.
The bad practice of people to assume what they should be able to conclude and the total ignorance of the role of epistemology and science in every philosophical inquiry.

I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple.

So, the basic idea is that science has two components: — Agent Smith

If you are interested about the components of Science or its nature in general the following lecture is the best you can find.

Systematicity: The Nature of Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYK7uhQ_QCk

because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". — Nickolasgaspar

And you tell us this on a philosophy forum...using the field as a comforting pillow and a way to seek validity ? Perhaps you've described thinking in general ? Don't know about you, but I'm a mammal. I like soft pillows and social status. A big part of philosophy is maybe us figuring out how to live together while not starving in the cold with rotting teeth and an intestinal parasite dangling on our thigh.
///////////////////////////////
They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths,"—and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm#link2HCH0001

Perhaps you've described thinking in general — jas0n

-correct and I point out that not all "thinking in general" qualifies as a philosophical inquire.

Don't know about you, but I'm a mammal. — jas0n

-that was a long shot but you are guessed right! I am a mammal too !

-" I like soft pillows and social status. "
-Me too but I don't call them different names...

A big part of philosophy is us figuring out how to live together while not starving in the cold with rotting teeth and an intestinal parasite dangling on our thigh. — jas0n

-Correct! Wise claims and ideas on what we learn can save us from suffering and death!

-"

They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths," — jas0n

-I am not interested in the reasons they are forced to advocate things....I am just pointing out the obvious.Philosophy is an exercise of frustration....if they seek comfort they should turn to Theology, but calling "theology" philosophy ...that is a dishonest practice.

So I am not denying the basic needs of mammals to ease their anxieties, what I am criticizing people's efforts to seek validity by trying to place their superstitions under the umbrella of status called Philosophy