Every snakeoil salesman and New Age pimp just loves an easy touch like you, Smith. Working both sides of the agora like this must be thirsty work even on rainy days. "Siainte!" :smirk:You're a prophet, Gnomon! :roll: — Agent Smith
1. A minimally-dependent field, or domain, which is relational and evident.Define
1. Existence: ...
2. Physical: ... — Agent Smith
:smirk:I have a feeling you'll take it as hogwash! — Agent Smith
1. A minimally-dependent field, or domain, which is relational and evident.
2. Aspects of existence (i.e. entities) consisting of structures sufficiently complex for computing defeasible models of said aspects of existence (i.e. entities). — 180 Proof
Probably hundreds of them ... I wouldn't know. — 180 Proof
. Aspects of existence (i.e. entities) consisting of structures sufficiently complex for computing defeasible models of said aspects of existence (i.e. entities). — 180 Proof
I doubt that anything like the reason & science-based Enformationism worldview will ever become a popular religion. For one thing, it's too broad & general. Yet, it works as an intellectual-philosophical attitude toward the ("stranger in a strange land") world we find ourselves trapped in (Heidegger :"thrownness"). But, a popular religion requires an emotional commitment, based on faith & hope for something better than the current imperfect world of pain & suffering. Some New Agers seem to feel a connection to something "bigger than us", as in Paganism & Panpsychism & Tat Tvam Asi ("thou art that"). And some may mistake Enformationism as a love-is-all-you-need New Age religious philosophy. But for me, it's merely a way to make sense of the mysteries (Why) that remain after materialistic Science has done all it can to reveal How the world works. :nerd:your EnformActionism is, to my reckoning, what religion will look like in the distant future (say a 100 to a 1000 years from now). It blends old ideas with new ones, in the most elegant of ways I might add. Moreover, it's got a little bit of everything in it (eclectic/mashup/remix)! — Agent Smith
Ha! 180 proof calling you a "troll" is like invader Vlad Putin calling defender Volo Zelensky a NAZI. :joke:Better to be a little troll than a giant Panner! — Hillary
2. Physical: That which is matter and/or energy. Both are perceived (accurately) with instruments. — Agent Smith
That which exists when mind is removed. — RogueAI
Ils sont fous cesRomainsChinois. — Obelix
Good one! That captures the essence of the physical in my opinion. However, it puts us in a bind to my reckoning for how are we to determine if anything is physical without the mind getting involved? — Agent Smith
Thank you. I would start with what we know to be true (at least one mind exists), and then see if any further assumptions about reality are warranted. Does positing the existence of mind-independent stuff solve anything? Is physicalism possible to prove? Does it lead to absurdities or contradictions? — RogueAI
Most interesting. :chin: — Ms. Marple.
Update
To put this thread back on track.
Define
1. Existence: That which can be perceived (with our senses & instruments( exists.
2. Physical: That which is matter and/or energy. Both are perceived (accurately) with instruments. — Agent Smith
Where does "God" fit in this? Shouldn't "back on track" refer to the subject, which is "God & Existence"?
Anyway, what conclusion can be drawn after having defined "existence" and "physical"? — Alkis Piskas
Insofar as "nonphysical" entails disembodied, it's indistinguishable from "nonexistent". Perhaps X is "nonphysical", such as an idea –it is subsistent instead (Meinong et al).The sticking point: How to distinguish nonexistence from nonphysical? — Agent Smith
Insofar as "nonphysical" entails disembodied, it's indistinguishable from "nonexistent". Perhaps X is "nonphysical", such as an idea –it is subsistent instead (Meinong et al). — 180 Proof
What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence. — Agent Smith
Because of faith. They just have beliefs, theists do not want knowledge. Even, when they use that, they tend to commit terrible paradoxes about God's existence. — javi2541997
Most interesting! — Ms. Marple
i.e. principle of explosion (à la "fiat lux") :sparkle:If you don't give a rat's ass about logic, anything goes! — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.