You are saying in the three examples that being pessimistic is better than being optimistic; being cautious is better than being foolhardy; and that being forewarned is better to heed to than not to heed to.

I can see where you are going with this: better to live a Christian life and accept its beliefs, because if there is no god, you lose nothing but if there is a God then you can only gain. Or if you don't follow a god's wishes, you'll end up in Hell.

This breaks down (sorry to say this), because:
1. You don't know what gets you to Hell or to Heaven given there is a judgmental god. If He says "do good and you go to heaven", you can believe it but you'll be in for a great surprize because the god you worship is a liar. (If he is. I don't know, but it is a real possibility.) You say he can't be a liar because he is god. Well, that's the safest thing to be for a liar, because nobody would suspect he is a liar.

2. Your god is not the one to listen to, because he does not exist, but a counter-god exists, (possible? yes!) with diametrically opposite teachings.

3. You will convince nobody, as I have never convinced a god-worshipper of the above. Logic does not trump belief.

pessimistic — god must be atheist

Threats, no matter how remote, must be assumed to exist

Opportunities, no matter how attractive, must be assumed not to exist.

God is both an opportunity (heaven) and a threat (hell).

What should be our assumption with regard to the reality of God? It leads to a contradiction!

Logic does not trump belief. — god must be atheist

Why argue (your point) then? Also, I'm making the effort to ground God in reason albeit in a way more appropriate for a crook.

Threats, no matter how remote, must be assumed to exist — Agent Smith

In scenario 2, the suitcase may contain a bomb. That is remotely possible and must be assumed to exist. It may contain Satan himself who will grab you. eTc.

Opportunities, no matter how attractive, must be assumed not to exist. — Agent Smith

If I go to school, and enroll in University to become a certified public accountant, I must assume that certified public accountants do not exist.

I don't think your assessment is right. Anything can contain a nearly infinite number of threats; and anything can contain a nearly infinite number of opportunities.

You cherry picked the ones to suit your finding; but if you dig deeper, you will see the error in that cherry-picking is the easiest fault in logic to spot.

I believe you've missed the point of my post or are focusing on the incidental rather than the essential.

Can you show me where exactly I picked cherries? :snicker:

Can you show me where exactly I picked cherries? — Agent Smith

No, I can't. If you can't see it already, then there is no amount of explanation in the world that will make you see it. Sorry, I have my limitations of patience, too.

In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith

Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively.

Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively. — 180 Proof

I have no clue what any of those three keywords mean.

No big deal, just sayin'.

Wiki & SEP are your friends, just sayin'. :wink:

In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith

It was a very complicated post and an interesting one. I hope I don't go to far off on tangents. Some thoughts:
The first scenario: gun out or not is a (potentially) emergency moment. It's different from a long term belief because it is a whole different set of skills to always have one's gun out or in. I guess I have similar reaction to scenario 2. What we can do in exceptional moments (or should do) is quite different to long term attitudes and beliefs.
On Pascal's Wager: Pascal actually intended his Wager as one to convince people to continue being Christians, not to become believers. How that affects the ideas in your post I am not sure. But it makes a lot more sense, because I don't think we start to believe from doing cost benefit analyses. Unless it leads to us participating in a religion, say, and participation (long term wagging the dog) leads to belief.

In discussions between (atheists, agnostics and theists), online at least, it often comes down to epistemology and arguments. Whereas in my everyday life it comes down to interest/curiousity/anomolies and long term exploration/participation. The motivational and experiential aspects of what is or might be going on and how these are affected by practices. Could be anything from Buddhist meditation to training as a shaman or joining in rituals
or
lacking interest and not.
Of course what one thinks is likely or possible affects interests, so it's not like there is no reasoning involved or that reasoning does not affect my curiosity/interest. But generally we are talking about long term explorations motivated by experiences or yearnings and the effects of these explorations on experience and belief.

I apologize if this was not really on topic.

Wiki & SEP are your friends, just sayin'. :wink: — 180 Proof

:fire:

Good points!

When faced with the unknown one is forced to approach it from a threat-opportunity standpoint with threat, the reduction/elimination/avoidance of it being priority #1. As they say, safety first! Opportunity while it may exist has also to be assumed absent, treated as an illusion. A mashup/combo of pessimism-hedonism will save you from Algos/Thanatos.

As is obvious, the skeptic has an important responsibility to fulfill - he provides a public service by sowing the seeds of doubt. Is it? Is it not? Is it both? Is it neither? Nobody knows/can ever know. Uncertainty is the key to ethics! If you're in the dark as to whether karma is real, whether God or hell exists, prudentia (one of the 4 cardinal virtues) would like a good advisor suggest that for own sake we assume God/karma/hell/heaven are real. That turns us into good people even if for ignoble reasons (fear/earning karmic points) only.

Apaṇṇaka (safe bet).

3. Theism/Atheism — 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.

Unfortunately, sans revelation, I have no way of knowing about anything prior to the Big Bang beginning. So, I must admit that I don't know for sure that there is a God. But, just admitting practical ignorance doesn't satisfy the quest for impractical philosophical speculation : not what-is, but what-ought-to-be, logically . Therefore, I have proposed a reasonable god-model that is not Theistic, but also not a tower-of-turtles assumption like Many Worlds and Multiverse speculations. Instead, my hypothetical god-model is what odds-maker Blaise Pascal derisively called "the god of the philosophers". Apparently, he was more comfortable with a god of statistics (Chance). Yet, my own, non-anthro-morphic, non-miraculous First Cause notion is a god only in the broad sense (sensu amplo) of logical necessity. :smile:

Contingent :
1. subject to chance
2. dependent
3. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case

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.

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?

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

Imagination score: 10/10!

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

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.

I didn't go looking for God, but I couldn't ignore the logical arrows pointing toward a creation event in the beginning, and of directional causation in evolution. I'm still not a worshiper of G*D, but I do appreciate the ontological & epistemological closure of the First Cause concept. Plato & Aristotle were not conventionally religious, but even though they knew nothing of a Big Bang beginning, they saw the logical necessity for an outside force to cause Space & Time to emerge from Infinity & Eternity.

Faithful Atheists may still cling to hope for an infinite regress of space-time -- for which there is no evidence -- to provide a reasonable alternative to an act of creation. They have even been imaginative enough to find fabulous workarounds for the emergence of space-time from a dimensionless & timeless Singularity. They seem to find comfort in hypothetical sci-fi scenarios that conveniently ignore the first law of physics, and bypass the inconvenient physical bottleneck a few billion solar-cycles back. Yet, if only our thermodynamic universe can find a way to avoid the inevitable heat-death ahead, it will overcome Entropy and rise to live forever, like a vampire, or like Jesus. Hallelujah!

Those eternal-time schemes -- like Doctor Who and time-traveling Marvel heroes -- provide dramatic fodder for the adolescent imagination. But, personally, I don't find their various evasive tactics to be philosophically believable. So, unlike many religious people today, I assume that this life, and this world, is one & done. But, I'd be happy to be proven wrong in one of infinite parallel-world afterlives. As long as I can remember who I was/am -- and what that round-thing-with-a-hole-in-it is supposed to do. :cool:


*1. See my Enformationism Thesis and BothAnd Blog for references to those wheel-patching scientists. Some may still claim to be Atheists, but others will admit to being Agnostic about the ultimate implications of their non-classical worldviews. Only a few are orthodox Theists.

THE WORLD RESTS ON TIME-TURTLES
. . . . . .ALL THE WAY DOWN . . . . .

In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility?
— Agent Smith

Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively. — 180 Proof

Of course, in the absence of defeasible (or abductive) reasoning, the perennial alternative (crutch / fetish) is Woo-of-the-Gaps.

Philosophy, as I understand it, helps to exorcize woo-woo (and also, as Socrates shows, the sophistry which rationalizes woo).

NB: By "woo" I mean 'answers to pseudo-questions'; 'solutions to pseudo-problems'; 'speculations from pseudo-science; and other modes of magical thinking.

If it does contain $1,000,000 what a pleasant surprise. Wow! What luck, you're future is secure.

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.

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.

Of course, in the absence of defeasible (or abductive) reasoning, the perennial alternative (crutch / fetish) is Woo-of-the-Gaps. — 180 Proof

As I've tried to explain in some of my older posts, people, for psychological reasons that I'm not aware of, want an answer to their questions even if they could be downright false (woo of the gaps). It isn't all that bad when you factor in the fact that, at the very least, coherence is valued (highly).

Philosophy, as I understand it, helps to exorcize woo-woo (and also, as Socrates shows, the sophistry which rationalizes woo). — 180 Proof

Mighty interesrting! Putting the cart before the horse (facts being made to fit theory).

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

If to answer a question one has to resort to woo then perhaps something's wrong with the question itself!

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

Apologies, my gedanken experiment didn't take inflation into account!

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

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.

Did you get the idea that Enformationism excludes modern science? That's what the woo-fighters on this forum assume, due to their prejudice against Metaphysics. But my thesis is built upon two cutting-edge sciences -- Quantum & Information -- that deal with the non-classical underbelly of reality. So, those who are uncomfortable with non-mechanical non-deterministic systems & processes, close their eyes & ears, while chanting the woo-woo mantra to drive away the evil spirits of the mysterious human Mind.

I'm currently reading a science book by Phillip Ball -- former editor at the technical journal Nature. The title of the book is Beyond Weird, and it deals with the natural phenomena that Einstein rejected as "God [nature] playing dice" and as "spooky action at a distance". Since then, pragmatic empirical scientists [see below], have decided not to concern themselves with the weird stuff, but to just "shut-up and calculate". Unfortunately, I'm not a math maven. So, in my waning years, my interests are directed toward the mundane stuff that has occupied philosophers for millennia : not Physics, but Meta-Physics, the non-physical (mental) aspects of our material world.

I assume that "weird" Metaphysics is what you are suggesting is a waste of time. The woo-birds treat that topic as mere Mysticism. And indeed, the pioneers of Quantum science -- Bohr, Heidegger, Schrodinger, Bohm, etc -- were accused of being mystics, when they suggested that the human mind has some causal effect on matter. So, I'm in good company. Since then, despite Feynman's quip, other scientists have made some progress toward understanding how that natural magic might happen. The key to that perception is the connection between Quantum Physics and Mental Information. Which is the insight that led me to the -- seemingly "weird" but actually natural & normal -- Enformationism thesis. :nerd:


Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : “what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information.” [My emphasis] He then admits that “quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . .” Consequently, his book is more about Philosophy than Science. Ironically, the exotic mathematics of Quantum Theory has become the foundation of 21st century science, even though its implications cannot be understood intuitively, or in terms of 19th century Classical Physics. Hence the so-called “weirdness” of QT has remained as queer as ever over the last century.
BothAnd Blog, post 125

Nature :
First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal.
https://www.nature.com

Quantum Mysticism :
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

DON'T TRY TO UNDERSTAND QM
JUST SHUT-UP AND CALCULATE

Look, I wouldn't dare to say I understood your EnFormation thesis or its auxiliary idea BothAnd. I've always had (major) issues with logic - I think I'm a right-brained person and hence reasoning is not my strong suit.

Anyway, a question. If mind has anything to do with the quantum world, why on Earth is quantum physics so hard to understand? That's like being afflicted by Alzheimer's - failing to recognize one's own self while scoring 10/10 recognizing others. Odd, wouldn't you say?

If mind has anything to do with the quantum world ... — Agent Smith

It doesn't. :point:

I now take the necessity for a First Cause (Enformer) for granted. Beyond that axiom ... Quantum uncertainty ... — Gnomon

This doesn't makes any sense since quantum uncertainty necessitates the absence of "a First Cause". (E.g. the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary conjecture.)

the pioneers of Quantum science -- Bohr, Heidegger, Schrodinger, Bohm,

"Heidegger?" Really? :lol:

:ok: Arigato.

Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait.

Look, I wouldn't dare to say I understood your EnFormation thesis or its auxiliary idea BothAnd. — Agent Smith

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.

Anyway, some related 21st century scientific concepts are a> the Mathematical Universe theory*2, and b> the Computer Universe theory*3. In both of those hypothetical worldviews, the basic substance of reality is Information, not Matter or Energy. And Evolution is really processing (computing) Information, not Matter. The BothAnd (yin/yang) philosophy is a corollary of the Enformationism worldview. If you are interested in how they are interrelated, I can give you links to the blog. All you have to do is ask, and you shall receive. :smile:

*1. Why is energy invisible? :
Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy

*2. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

*3. Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer? :
http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/

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

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:

Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaqwlJtrakw

Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait. — 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:

Hartle-Hawking Conjecture :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

*4. A sphere has no geometric point-of-beginning, and no final boundary. But, if it exists in reality, even a sphere must have an existential point-of-being.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait. — Agent Smith

:smirk:

When I speak of a pre-big-bang Causal Agency, I'm not talking about anything physical or material — Gnomon

So a non-physical / im-material "cause" of physical / material processes, yes (i.e. woo-of-the gaps)?

corollaries:

• How does your "Meta-physics" trump physics' conservation laws (e.g. Newton's 3rd law of motion)?

• How have you solved the causal interaction problem (re: substance dualism)?

• With respect to "Causal Agency", what non-trivially differentiates "Enformationism" from creationism / intelligent design?

In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith

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:

Deism Beyond Reason :
In his respectful critique of Deism, he makes one telling observation : "Most deists I know do believe in more (about God) than what natural, unaided reason can discover." Although Reason is their raison d'etre, Deists cannot deny that some of their beliefs and hopes are not derived from pure Reason, but from reason supplemented with hope or speculation. So the original post-enlightenment boast of a “rational religion”, was true only by comparison to the more dogmatic Faith religions of the day.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

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

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:

PS__Atheists will challenge the practical aspects of a transcendent deity : "what has he done for you lately?" (i.e. miraculous interventions). But Deists would answer, she/he created the magnificent world "in which we live & breathe and have our being". Is that enough of a miracle for you? Although astronomers have been looking-in-vain (100 years) for extra-terrestrial life, as far as we now know, our "blue dot" is unique in the universe.

Critique of Pure Reason :
* Immanuel Kant, in his 1781 treatise, distinguished between Pure and Practical reasoning.
* Early Deists of the same era, idolized the transcendental form of reasoning. But in practice, their thinking was contaminated with the same worldly concerns that have always led men from the “true path”.
* However, a BothAnd combination of Pure philosophical reasoning, and Practical scientific problem-solving can allow us to contemplate transcendental possibilities without the risk of believing in impossible things.
* G*D is a transcendental concept, hence with no practical applications. Yet, the notion of an ideal Being can have important theoretical implications. Yes, G*D is just a theory, but also a reasonable inference from the meta-physical aspects of physical reality.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

Practical reasoning is basically goal-directed reasoning from an agent's goal, and from some action selected as a means to carry out the goal, to the agent's reasoned decision to carry out the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reason

My own take is rather simple but in line with the intuitions of Aristotle et al in that the PSR (the principle of sufficient reason) warrants a primum movens. I have my reservations though for the PSR may apply to the contents of our cosmos and not the cosmos itself (vide fallacy of composition, a well-known criticism of the prime mover argument).

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.

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

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.

Even Atheist scientists have conceded that something with the ability to Create (Enform) a new world from scratch (mathematical Singularity) is logically necessary. But they tend to think of Materialistic causes, such as eternal regression of Multiverses (tower of turtles), or Many Worlds (hypothetical parallel universes), or Materialistic Magic (Instantaneous "Inflation" of a universe from a minuscule quantum fluctuation). All of these scenarios presume eternal Space & Time, and Energy & Laws. So, Enformationism lumps all those resources under the heading of "Causal Information", otherwise known as "Intention". But the Power of Intention is found only in Living & Thinking things -- not in space-time or energy/laws -- which have the ability to imagine the future, and to progress toward a preset goal.

I call that creative power in the universe "EnFormAction" (the ability to transform Potential into Actual). So, the creative act of enforming -- via the mechanism of Evolution -- progresses toward some unknown (to us) teleological destination. However, it's obviously not top-down Teleology (as in Genesis), but bottom-up Evolution, with only the standards of Natural Selection to guide the program toward the Intended Final State.

Hows that, for "how the universe" is creating itself via innate Intention? :nerd:

Intention :
1. a thing intended; an aim or plan or program.
2. stretching or leaning toward something
3. purpose ; design

Nice! I have a rough idea of what you're gettin' at. Your is what I'd call a variable-based theory. It generalizes the intuition/rationale of the multiple hypotheses floatin around such that each one fits with your x-based EnformAction thesis; how snugly is up to how good is your generalization is of course.

Let's test how good your idea is: Try and harmonize the following thesis-antithesis pairs:

1. Theism-Atheism (everyone's favorite don't-get-along-at-all couple).

2. Rationalism-Empiricism (another such pair).