But mathematics models the relation.

Metaphysics arrives as its ultimate qualities via the dialectic or dichotomy, which is a reciprocal or inverse relation. So in Yin-Yang fashion, this is a self-quantifying approach to qualities. Thesis and antithesis meet synthesis in the degree to which each it’s not its “other”.

To be discrete is not to be continuous. And vice versa. And this dichotomisation of possibility is mathematically expressed as a reciprocal relation. Discrete = 1/continuous. And continuous = 1/discrete.

Each is the limit on its other. Each is the unit which is thus the basis of measurement or quantification in regard to that other.

I can measure discreteness in the world to the degree I can measure no continuity. And vice versa. And that is expressible as the simplest mathematical relation. — apokrisis

No, mathematics reduces the relation. It aims to reduce any relation to one dimension: a numerical order. And measurement is an act of quantification that reduces the complexity of experience to this linear relation. Which is fine, as long as you recognise the qualitative complexity of the relation you started with.

These ‘ultimate qualities’ are limited by the finite time, effort and attention of an observation/measurement event. We talk about energy as if it’s continuous, but it’s not really. We talk about protons as if they’re discrete, but they’re not really. The variable quality of an event is relative to the limitations of the observer: the event horizon is no more than a reflection of ourselves.

Yin-yang is not about ‘dark’ and ‘light’, ultimate qualities, but about the indivisible whole: the potential/apparent lightness in dark and darkness in light that reflects the conscious observer. It’s about recognising our own perceptual limitations in relation to quality, rather than imposing them as limitations on reality.

Time is how one event measures change in relation to another. It’s a linear relation of variable change. The qualitative structure of time, however, is four-dimensional. Whenever you go from the maths to application, you need to reconfigure it as an event or act: a four-dimensional distribution of effort and attention.

Numerical order is a linear relation of variable significance, or how one structure of potentiality measures value in relation to another. But now we’re talking about five-dimensional structures. In application you’re reconfiguring predictions, measurement devices, conceptual systems, languages, ideologies, etc.

This linear relation of value - like the linear relation of time - is an heuristic device, a simplistic, mathematical model. And Peirce draws attention to the third aspect of any linear continuum: a reflection of the observer as the source of any limitations in the system.

So the limit of each ‘ultimate quality’ is not the other, but the qualitative structure of the identity element, the unit or symmetry breaking point. It represents the lack of symmetry in any dual relation - the missing third aspect.

It is the universal trick that allows measurement. We can only ever ground an act of measurement in terms of a claim of what is, within the context of all that it is thus not. — apokrisis

I think we can more accurately ground an act of measurement in the limitations of the device/observer.

Which is fine, as long as you recognise the qualitative complexity of the relation you started with. — Possibility

Err, extracting the qualitative simplicity of existence would be the entire point of metaphysics.

Some folk just reduce it to unmeasurable momisms - god, mind, spirit, whatever - rather than the reciprocal relations that justify some scheme of measurement or observation.

We talk about energy as if it’s continuous, but it’s not really. We talk about protons as if they’re discrete, but they’re not really. — Possibility

Yes. And how do we know that? Our measurements have told us at energy is not continuous except as a bulk view that doesn’t see the Planck grain, and protons are merely hadronic blobs confined by their strong force.

Yin-yang is not about ‘dark’ and ‘light’, ultimate qualities, but about the indivisible whole: — Possibility

And yet the indivisible whole is also divided in some dichotomous fashion at every available turn.

Wiki - In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng pronounced [ín jǎŋ], lit. "dark-light", "negative-positive") is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes how obviously opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.

In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of Yin and Yang and formed into objects and lives. Yin is the receptive and Yang the active principle, seen in all forms of change and difference such as the annual cycle (winter and summer), the landscape (north-facing shade and south-facing brightness), sexual coupling (female and male), the formation of both men and women as characters and sociopolitical history (disorder and order).

And Peirce draws attention to the third aspect of any linear continuum: a reflection of the observer as the source of any limitations in the system. — Possibility

Being the modeller with the pragmatic purpose certainly imposes limitations on how the world gets modelled. But also science is human inquiry doing its level best to transcend the limits of this subjectivism.

It can’t of course remove itself from the world entirely. But it has been making exponential progress for some time now.

I think we can more accurately ground an act of measurement in the limitations of the device/observer. — Possibility

Again, if you think this is “Peircean”, you would have to explain what the heck he was doing when employed in tasks like producing a better working definition of the standard yard for the US weights and measure service. He came up with the diffraction grating approach that could provide accuracy to parts in a million - https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.3273015

Err, extracting the qualitative simplicity of existence would be the entire point of metaphysics.

Some folk just reduce it to unmeasurable momisms - god, mind, spirit, whatever - rather than the reciprocal relations that justify some scheme of measurement or observation. — apokrisis

No - the point of metaphysics is to extract the holistic simplicity of existence, which I think you and I can agree is triadic.

We talk about energy as if it’s continuous, but it’s not really. We talk about protons as if they’re discrete, but they’re not really.
— Possibility

Yes. And how do we know that? Our measurements have told us at energy is not continuous except as a bulk view that doesn’t see the Planck grain, and protons are merely hadronic blobs confined by their strong force. — apokrisis

They’re just different ways to describe or configure reality in relation to a limited observer. What matters is the qualitative structure of the observer in relation to the measurement, not so much the measurement itself, which doesn’t speak.

Yin-yang is not about ‘dark’ and ‘light’, ultimate qualities, but about the indivisible whole:
— Possibility

And yet the indivisible whole is also divided in some dichotomous fashion at every available turn. — apokrisis

Heuristically, sure.

Same Wiki (further down): In Taoist metaphysics, distinctions between good and bad, along with other dichotomous moral judgments, are perceptual, not real; so, the duality of yin and yang is an indivisible whole.

And Peirce draws attention to the third aspect of any linear continuum: a reflection of the observer as the source of any limitations in the system.
— Possibility

Being the modeller with the pragmatic purpose certainly imposes limitations on how the world gets modelled. But also science is human inquiry doing its level best to transcend the limits of this subjectivism.

It can’t of course remove itself from the world entirely. But it has been making exponential progress for some time now. — apokrisis

Not without serious ethical missteps. Removing oneself from the world seems to me a self-destructive purpose...but, that has been the trajectory of science as a whole for some time now...I think human inquiry has to reconsider aspects of its methodology if it wants to succeed in transcending the limits of subjectivism without annihilating itself. That’s my humble view.

I think we can more accurately ground an act of measurement in the limitations of the device/observer.
— Possibility

Again, if you think this is “Peircean”, you would have to explain what the heck he was doing when employed in tasks like producing a better working definition of the standard yard for the US weights and measure service. He came up with the diffraction grating approach that could provide accuracy to parts in a million — apokrisis

No, I don’t necessarily think this is Peircean (hence ‘I think’). I consider Peircean metaphysics to be a useful and logical starting point, and a meaningful space for our discussion, but I don’t consider my own approach to be limited by Peirce’s view. I think his approach enabled him to recognise the limitations and then improve on the accuracy of measurement systems - to change the device on which we ground an act of measurement.

In a triadic relation, there is no need for ‘ground’ as such. It is the triadic interchangeability of ground that ensures the accuracy and stability of the system. That’s what symmetry is, after all.

No - the point of metaphysics is to extract the holistic simplicity of existence, which I think you and I can agree is triadic. — Possibility

Sure. Out of the monism of unconstrained potential (Firstness) comes the mutually constraining reciprocity of the dichotomy (secondness). And from there arises the triadic relation which is a hierarchical structure (thirdness).

They’re just different ways to describe or configure reality in relation to a limited observer. What matters is the qualitative structure of the observer in relation to the measurement, not so much the measurement itself, which doesn’t speak. — Possibility

What matters is that the observer has some concept in mind that feels measurable - such as some spectrum of possibility defined by its dichotomous bounds, like whether the observable tends more towards the discrete or the continuous.

No - the point of metaphysics is to extract the holistic simplicity of existence, which I think you and I can agree is triadic.
— Possibility

Sure. Out of the monism of unconstrained potential (Firstness) comes the mutually constraining reciprocity of the dichotomy (secondness). And from there arises the triadic relation which is a hierarchical structure (thirdness). — apokrisis

I don’t really subscribe to this Peircean sequencing as such. Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness suggest ordinality as a fundamental assumption, but quantum non-individuality disputes this. I consider ‘unconstrained potentiality’ to reflect the possibility/impossibility of pure relation - the ‘alpha-omega’, so to speak. So, there is no one-way relation of identifying reciprocity that would suggest ‘secondness’ at all here, objectively speaking. And a triad exists a priori in this variable potentiality of relational possibility/impossibility.

What matters is that the observer has some concept in mind that feels measurable - such as some spectrum of possibility defined by its dichotomous bounds, like whether the observable tends more towards the discrete or the continuous. — apokrisis

Which is arbitrary, subjective. The grounding here is feeling, affect. This is the identity element: the inaccuracy or fuzziness of any genuine question, the scarcity of a scientist’s resources (attention, effort, time). Not merely 1, but 1/ and-or /1.

I don’t really subscribe to this Peircean sequencing as such. — Possibility

So you don’t really subscribe to his naturalistic view of a developmental cosmos and thus not really to Peirceanism at all? Ah, well.

The grounding here is feeling, affect. — Possibility

Subjective idealism rather than objective idealism? Ah, well.

I don’t really subscribe to this Peircean sequencing as such.
— Possibility

So you don’t really subscribe to his naturalistic view of a developmental cosmos and thus not really to Peirceanism at all? Ah, well. — apokrisis

I think it has merit as a philosophy that is grounded in an affected preference for mathematical logic. I don’t disagree with it, as such, I just think there’s a more objective position. One that takes into account the (hidden?) symmetry of an interchangeable triadic grounding: logic, quality and form.

Subjective idealism rather than objective idealism? Ah, well. — apokrisis

Leaning more towards ontic structural realism, if we have to label it.

Leaning more towards ontic structural realism, if we have to label it. — Possibility

If you say so. But then your inclusion of affect or observers makes even less sense to me.

If you say so. But then your inclusion of affect or observers makes even less sense to me. — apokrisis

Affect refers to a four-dimensional structure of relation. Conscious observers are five-dimensional. Non-conscious observers are four-dimensional. I tend to lose people when I start talking this way.

I subscribe to panpsychism.
The one difference is I would substitute "intelligence" for "consciousness."
That is, intelligent systems do not have to have consciousness, but consciousness is always a process of intelligence.

..., but consciousness is always a process of intelligence. — Jackson

Does a person with dementia have no consciousness?

I am not a doctor. Don't have any knowledge of the neurology of dementia.

Do you really think demented people have no feelings?

I am not a doctor.

I thought it was also worth adding that the theists have the same problem as in, where did god come from. An infinity of earlier gods?
Why should we accept their 'special plead' of no the regression stops at god.- Universness

Hi Universeness. To further our conversation:

You can ask where did God from from, but as you say, that invokes an infinite regression. I personally think that an Eternal, self existing Mind, that is the very essence of Being, is far more parsimonious.
However, I have just recently had the thoughts of the infinite regression of the things this Being has done, and has thought. So even within a theistic framework, there is no way to escape an infinite regression of sorts. Either we have an infinite regression of this God made this God made this God ad infinitum, or we posit One self existent God with an infinite regression of the acts, thoughts (i.e. what was the first thought God had...what was His first act?) I am not so sure that I am looking at this correctly though. I guess the question for me has become: which infinite regression is most simple, sensible?

Relating all this to Panpsychism, it would seem that whatever view one has, consciousness in some form, is fundamental. Even from a purely physicalist/naturalist perspective, the mere fact that it happened, that consciousness and self awareness (identity) emerged from the cosmic soup, means that the materials needed already existed (which is obvious, right?). It is also obvious that these materials arranged in some configuration to give rise to consciousness. If these materials are void of any raw conscious property, then to me, it just makes intuitive sense, that no possible arrangement could have brought forth such a reality. The nature of consciousness just strikes me as so fundamental, so irreducible, that it has the same status in my map of reality as does existence. Something self existed...I think we all would agree with that, whether that was God or the quantum vacuum. Whatever the ultimate, transcendent reality is, the stuff of thought was mixed in there. Even given trillions and trillions of epochs and aeons, I can't see any reason as to why consciousness would have necessarily sparked unless it is eternally entwined in the fabric of space time, perhaps a space/time/consciousness continuum, if you will.

What do you mean that it's a process? That it's a byproduct, or an emergent?

@Jackson"Does a person with Dementia experience consciousness?" Butting in, I'd say yes. Some awareness of their environment and their own-self remains intact.

Hi Universeness. To further our conversation: — Watchmaker

A pleasure to do so.....

I personally think that an Eternal, self existing Mind, that is the very essence of Being, is far more parsimonious — Watchmaker

I think many theists take this position. They reject the infinite regression or 'first cause' problem by claiming that god is 'outside of time,' and 'outside of causality.' I think this is just the same as saying 'you can NEVER approach the concept of god using a mere human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism.

My counter is that I personally, therefore, have no need for god, AT ALL.
I further suggest that the need for such an entity is down to human primal fears.
This is the basis of my atheism and I have so far, come across, no contrary concept which I have found compelling or can even challenge that position in any way I would find at least interesting apart from musings about 'projecting panpsychism,' to an emergence of a very distant future state that suggests that, if all the lifeforms in the Universe ever answer all questions and can collectivise/merge the consciousness of individuals in some way or form, then perhaps such a 'collective consciousness,' would satisfy the omnis and could be declared god, although I see no reason why we could not just as accurately label it 'Archie,' or 'Betty,' etc as god is such an overcooked label.

the mere fact that it happened, that consciousness and self awareness (identity) emerged from the cosmic soup, means that the materials needed already existed (which is obvious, right?) — Watchmaker

I think so yes. I don't think an early or first cause version of Tinkerbell sprinkled some 'consciousness fairy dust,' over one of the homo-sapiens wanderings about the Serengeti and named it Adam before transporting it to a pretty walled garden and giving it a set of do's and don'ts to adhere to.
Cosmic ingredients can do a great deal it seems, if you cook for 14 billion years and allow very large varieties in very large combinations. We don't need the supernatural when the natural is so super.

I can't see any reason as to why consciousness would have necessarily sparked unless it is eternally entwined in the fabric of space time, perhaps a space/time/consciousness continuum, if you will. — Watchmaker

Sounds reasonable to me, It has also been suggested that if connected/networked life within a Universe can as a totality, satisfy the omni criteria for godhood then what would it do then? Well, it might try to reproduce itself by seeding a new singularity and starting the whole process all over again so this Universe might be an attempt by a previous 'god,' or 'Archie,' or 'Betty,' emergence to reproduce, but this would not be any god as described in any current or ancient human religion.
For me however, it is the only god concept, that I would raise an eyebrow of every so slight interest towards and it would have nothing to do with preserving life after death. Technologically driven transhumanism is the only real hope for significant lifespan longevity in my opinion.

I further suggest that the need for such an entity is down to human primal fears. — universeness

The need for such an entity is to give a non scientific reason or meaning to life and the universe it's in. Science can neatly describe the universe and the life in it. But the reason or meaning of it can't be explained scientifically.

to give a non scientific reason or meaning to life and the universe it's in. — Haglund

We don't need one imo.

the reason or meaning of it can't be explained scientifically. — Haglund

Yes it can, in time.

God will show himself. In time... :grin:

Yes it can, in time — universeness

But then, from where comes the stuff used in the explanation?

God will show himself. In time. — Haglund

I hope so, we can then throw it in jail forever for abandoning its responsibilities for so long.

But then, from where comes the stuff used in the explanation? — Haglund

I don't know, need more time. If you give your god more time to appear then give your fellow humans more time to figure out the origin story of the Universe. At least we can appear to each other, which is more than your puny gods seem able to do.

God will show himself. In time.
— Haglund
I hope so, we can then throw it in jail forever for abandoning its responsibilities for so long. — universeness

Or maybe they show us how not to ruin the planet.

But then, from where comes the stuff used in the explanation?
— Haglund

I don't know, need more time. — universeness

But when the final explanation is there?

Or maybe they show us how not to ruin the planet — Haglund

We already know how to do that in my opinion, it involves getting global politics correct.

But when the final explanation is there? — Haglund

Then we will understand why the god posit was wrong.

Then we will understand why the god posit was wrong. — universeness

You and I have absorbed about 2500 years of scientific thought in a half lifetime. Say the current supposed ToE, string theory is it (which I don't think). Then from where comes the string landscape?

You and I have absorbed about 2500 years of scientific thought in a half lifetime — Haglund

That's a big claim friend. I would say I know a small slice of the past 2500 years of data/information garnished from the application of the scientific method and most of that is rather rudimentary. I defer to those in the current science community (cosmology in particular) and many other able people who are on the periphery of that group for any 'new or improved,' personal insight. I don't turn to theists for anything new as they rarely have any new thoughts to offer.
I am most attracted to string theory and I think it is the correct path but cannot yet offer itself as a convincing ToE. Cosmology does have some musings about the 'string landscape,' such as Mtheory but nothing demonstrable or verifiable yet. I see no reason for trying to fill such gaps with something as lazy-minded as the god posit.

I personally think that an Eternal, self existing Mind, that is the very essence of Being, is far more parsimonious
— Watchmaker

I think many theists take this position. They reject the infinite regression or 'first cause' problem by claiming that god is 'outside of time,' and 'outside of causality.' I think this is just the same as saying 'you can NEVER approach the concept of god using a mere human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism.

My counter is that I personally, therefore, have no need for god, AT ALL.
I further suggest that the need for such an entity is down to human primal fears. — universeness

Interesting that you cite ‘human primal fears’ as the basis of a need for god - where do they fit into your list of ‘human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism’?

I’m with you that maximising awareness, connection and collaboration is most likely to lead us to what could satisfyingly be called ‘god’. I also think this question of whether or not we need this ‘god’ would have no objective answer, even at that point. It will always be a personal relation - but then, that’s kind of the idea. It’s the relation that matters, that renders ‘god’ existent (even in the distant realm of possibility/impossibility) - not need or any other quality, as such.

Interesting that you cite ‘human primal fears’ as the basis of a need for god - where do they fit into your list of ‘human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism’? — Possibility

Well I think that the Darwinian facts related to human evolution and jungle rules such as 'survival of the fittest,' and the reality we see every time we watch David Attenboroughs reports on the animal world demonstrate a very unattractive story that does not match the theistic stories of an omnibenevolent deity.

If any of the animals I see getting chased down by lionesses, hyenas, wolfs etc have any capacity to feel then they must be f****** terrified. Just like we were as we hid in our caves at night in ancient times. OF COURSE, we invented gods to give us hope of some ultimate protection against such terrors.
I think all animal species would do the same, once they understand the rules of natural selection.

From the standpoint of naturalism and natural selection/evolution, I see why terror was and is necessary.
You need to be motivated to run and survive or kill your attacker, the fight or flight instinct.
As our triune brain system developed we gained a cerebral cortex and we could 'reason' at a much more nuanced level. We developed high levels of emotional intensity.
We could laugh/cry/empathise/love etc etc in very intense ways.
This was contrary to 'life in the caves,' so we used our new intelligence level to leave the caves and invent technologies to defeat the 'laws of the jungle.'

So again, OF COURSE, we added to embelished our god stories into religions, to attempt to make sense of the primal fears we inherited from natural selection and to explain our range of intensity of myriad emotions, which conflict, as they originate from a three brain system. The Rcomplex, the Limbic system and the Cortex. These three separate systems can work together but they do not merge harmoniously.

So OF COURSE, we seek superhero gods to take ultimate responsibility for our inner conflicts, our salvation and our fate after death. So we made gods to sate our primal fears and our fear of death/oblivion.

It's time to face our primal fears and realise that we have defeated all the scary creatures outside the caves and the only things that can make us extinct now are our own behaviors and natural disasters. So we must concentrate on those threats. We must rely on science and transhumanism to provide future lifespan longevity CHOICES and provide us with the ability to leave this planetary nest and reduce the possibility of extinction through natural disaster.
We must see that WE MADE GODS, they never existed, they just help many of us cope with life's terrors much better but they are illusions and no more than a crutch and something to scapegoat when things are bad.
We must see death as merely a harbinger and offer of change/termination. If your personal suffering in life has overwhelmed its wonderment to you then death/oblivion is a release from such. It's a friend, not a terror. I personally don't seek death or suicide and I would recommend against choosing it over living as I am convinced that If I did choose death then really cool stuff would happen afterward and I would f****** miss it.
Fear/bad/evil etc are nothing more than unpleasant human brain states that have no objective reality.
Bad stuff can happen to you, sure, and yes you can suffer and have a crap life but things can also change and get better and you can have some wonderful times, especially if we all work together if we all become humanists for the well-being of all.
In my opinion, this is where the solutions to our current global problems and individual suffering reside. We all have the solutions to each other's problems. Uniting together and combatting/converting nefarious b******* is the way to go.

We must finally learn to let go of the god scapegoat, take personal responsibility and 'boldy go where we have never gone before!'

So... none of the above.

You do realise that all of this is interpretation. Even Darwinian evolution and this notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ are constructed according to assumptions (fears) and preferences (desires). There is no ‘of course’ about it. We like to think/hope that science and transhumanism will enable us ALL to gain control over death, but this is no less a bedtime story than religion is. Science is motivated by answers to questions and pays zero attention to humanity when left to its devices. And frankly, transhumanism smacks of self-interest masquerading as philanthropy, tbh.

In the end, I think all these interpretations of who we intend to be as humans point towards a fundamental question we need to ask ourselves: if it came down to a choice between living and loving, which would I choose? And if the answer is ‘it depends’, then perhaps we still have need of god, after all - if only as as a framework for our understanding.