pessimistic — god must be atheist
Logic does not trump belief. — god must be atheist
Threats, no matter how remote, must be assumed to exist — Agent Smith
Opportunities, no matter how attractive, must be assumed not to exist. — Agent Smith
Can you show me where exactly I picked cherries? — Agent Smith
Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively.In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith
Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively. — 180 Proof
In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith
I abandoned the Theistic religion of my childhood long ago. But I was never able to become an assured Atheist, because that theory-of-absence offered no explanation for such philosophical questions as "why is there something instead of nothing?" Apparently, Atheists are not troubled by such ontological or epistemological or existential quandaries. But Agnostics seem to need some closure on universal & general questions. So, my BothAnd philosophy combines Theism & Atheism into Agnosticism. Based on my Enformationism (enforming is creating) worldview, it's obvious that our contingent world is not self-existent. So, logically there should be some kind of First Cause to explain the chain of causation that led to my own contingent existence.3. Theism/Atheism — Agent Smith
You're a cop on patrol. There's a unlit, dark room you have to check. There's either an armed burglar or the room's empty and safe. — Agent Smith
Why are those your only choices? Maybe there's a small child in the room who's about to be greeted with a pointed weapon at his head. — Hanover
Actually, I didn't reinvent the wheel --- and I didn't find a full-size spare tire in the trunk of my new worldview. Instead, I have merely patched timeworn ancient philosophical wisdom with 21st century knowledge. Specifically, in the squishy Quantum foundation of reality, and in the ubiquity of Causal Information. These are not traditional factors in religious or philosophical arguments. But lots of pragmatic scientists*1 are beginning to see the philosophical implications of those fruitful features of cutting-edge Science.It's natural to ask questions and equally natural to look for reasonable answers. God is just one of the many manifestations of our curiosity (that killed the cat). Your logic is not new but that's a compliment - you see the value of ancient arguments or, at the very least, have found a means to reconstruct trains of thought that are as old as the mountains. Why reinvent the wheel? — Agent Smith
Of course, in the absence of defeasible (or abductive) reasoning, the perennial alternative (crutch / fetish) is Woo-of-the-Gaps.In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility?
— Agent Smith
Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively. — 180 Proof
If it does contain $1,000,000 what a pleasant surprise. Wow! What luck, you're future is secure.
Of course, in the absence of defeasible (or abductive) reasoning, the perennial alternative (crutch / fetish) is Woo-of-the-Gaps. — 180 Proof
Philosophy, as I understand it, helps to exorcize woo-woo (and also, as Socrates shows, the sophistry which rationalizes woo). — 180 Proof
NB: By "woo" I mean 'answers to pseudo-questions'; 'solutions to pseudo-problems'; 'speculations from pseudo-science; and other modes of magical thinking. — 180 Proof
Eh, what does that get you? A dated three bedroom with termite issues the last owner got for $135,000 in 1990. We need a new "big" amount of money at this rate. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes. That's what I'm doing in the BothAnd Blog. I now take the necessity for a First Cause (Enformer) for granted. Beyond that axiom, I don't concern myself with super-natural matters, such as miracles & magic. Instead, I apply the principles of Quantum uncertainty and Information ubiquity to understanding how the Natural (material) & Cultural (mental) world works : "how G*D . . . runs the universe", as you expressed it. Reductionist & Empirical Science does a good job of revealing the deterministic mechanical workings of Nature. But it has been less successful in understanding the non-linear vagaries of the Quantum Queerness, inextricably entangled with the human Mind, and its cultural extensions.If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, there's ample room in your EnFormAction for science by treating it as answers to how G*D (primum movens) created and runs the universe. Aristotle's 4 causes (material, efficient, formal, final) is just what the doctor ordered for the inclusion of science in EnFormAction. — Agent Smith
It doesn't. :point:If mind has anything to do with the quantum world ... — Agent Smith
This doesn't makes any sense since quantum uncertainty necessitates the absence of "a First Cause". (E.g. the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary conjecture.)I now take the necessity for a First Cause (Enformer) for granted. Beyond that axiom ... Quantum uncertainty ... — Gnomon
"Heidegger?" Really? :lol:the pioneers of Quantum science -- Bohr, Heidegger, Schrodinger, Bohm,
The core idea of Enformationism is simple : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information. That's illustrated most succinctly in Einstein's formula E = MC^2. Energy is invisible & intangible*1, so we know it only by its effects on Matter. Hence, Energy is the physical power-to-enform (to cause changes in material form). But the less well known application of the power-to-enform is the metaphysical ability to change minds. I won't go into that right now, but it's covered in the blog.Look, I wouldn't dare to say I understood your EnFormation thesis or its auxiliary idea BothAnd. — Agent Smith
Some physicists routinely use Quantum Theory in their work, even though they find it philosophically absurd. But my response is that QT is not "absurd", just coy (shy ; reluctant to reveal information). Pragmatic scientists don't understand QT, because they are trying to comprehend the math from a materialistic perspective. In his book, Quantum Weirdness, Phillip Ball informs us that "it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or fuzziness. It is a theory about information". In a YouTube video, he says "Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird, We’re Just Too Big". So, if you want to grasp the meaning of the quantum foundation of the world, you'll need to look at it from an Information-Centric perspective, where abstract information is the focal point. :nerd:Anyway, a question. If mind has anything to do with the quantum world, why on Earth is quantum physics so hard to understand? — Agent Smith
I no longer respond to those who think "boo, hiss" is a philosophical argument. But I'll let you decide if his assertion is plausible : that the "no [physical] boundary conjecture"*4 eliminates the philosophical (logical) necessity for a First Cause. When I speak of a pre-big-bang Causal Agency, I'm not talking about anything physical or material ; but about an Enforming Mind. If you don't believe in Metaphysical (non-physical) Minds, the idea of a primordial Timeless Mind will seem absurd. :cool:Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait. — Agent Smith
:smirk:Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait. — Agent Smith
So a non-physical / im-material "cause" of physical / material processes, yes (i.e. woo-of-the gaps)?When I speak of a pre-big-bang Causal Agency, I'm not talking about anything physical or material — Gnomon
Are you familiar with the Enlightenment era philosophy of Deism? They were Agnostic about the G*D of Theism, specifically Judeo-Christianity, but they continued to accept the logical necessity for a First Cause of some unspecified kind. So, they doubted the existence of the Bible God, and were uncertain of the characteristics of the rationally revealed "G*D of the philosophers". Yet, they dealt with their lack of empirical evidence, by trusting in their own reasoning ability. Ironically, the Faith religions advise us to doubt our own ability to make sense of the world, and to trust some ancient prophets & scribes to tell us what to believe. If it comes down to Faith vs Reason, which are you more likely to trust? :halo:In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith
If the formal Logic of Pure Reasoning is not amenable with your right-brain Holistic thinking, maybe you can dabble in Practical Reasoning. What difference does it make to you, whether there is a transcendental deity to serve as an explanation for existential questions : such as "why is there something rather than nothing?" What are the logical possibilities : a> eternal evolving Matter, or b> eternal creative Mind? Is your matter permanent? Is your mind creative? :nerd:I've always had (major) issues with logic - I think I'm a right-brained person and hence reasoning is not my strong suit. — Agent Smith
In accordance with the BothAnd philosophy, Enformationism is both Reductive (it all boils down to Information Bits as the atoms of reality), but it's also Holistic (as in PanEnDeism : all is in G*D). If you're no comfortable with the G*D terminology, you can just as well call it "LOGOS" per Plato, or "TAO" per Lao Tse. Whatever you call it, "the Who" or "The All" is the potential source of all actual things and processes in the contingent world. "Sufficient Reason" will tell you that much, with no need for divine revelation.With regard to information, are you proposing a reductionist thesis - that everything boils down to information? As I suggested to you earlier, in addition to positing a who (created the universe)? - your Enformer - you might also wanna explore how (the universe was created) - with information. — 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.