The spontaneous popping into existence of elementary particles is propagation from a physicalist ground; it exemplifies serial holism. Life propagating spontaneously from a physical ground is transcendent holism. Existence is peer to peer. Existence never propagates from non-existence. — ucarr
The universe cannot create herself except through the mysterious dialogue of self and other. — ucarr
Atheism, though faithful, in the absence of physicalism explaining existence, has no idea where it comes from. — ucarr
How do you know that a 'physical ground' is bereft of life? It seems like you excluded the possibility as an assumption in order to introduce it as a necessity. — Paine
This is the dilemma that both modern religious and scientific thinking has created for itself. — Joshs
...it still insists on deriving this dynamism, interconnectedness and historical becoming from a ground which is anything but dynamic. — Joshs
Why does change have to ‘ come from’ something unchanging , some dead first cause, either nothingness or a God who creates axioms? Isn’t such a creator the essence of solitude and isolation? — Joshs
Anthromorphizing compositional fallacy at the very least. And, without a clear conception of "consciousness" either in philosophy or science, the phrase "consciousness-bearing" is uninformative. The rest of your post, trafficking as it does in pseudo-science / misinterpreting QM's 'observer effect', doesn't make much sense either except maybe as wishful thinking (i.e. "theology"). Lastly, I don't recognize the theisms of Abrahamic, Vedic, or any other pagan faiths in your account, ucarr, so on that point, again, I don't know what you mean by "theism" or, for that matter, "atheism".We know from ourselves that our universe is a consciousness-bearing universe. — ucarr
Did you not introduce transcendence as what the 'physical' could not provide? — Paine
Life propagating spontaneously from a physical ground is transcendent holism. — ucarr
Anthromorphizing compositional fallacy at the very least. — 180 Proof
...without a clear conception of "consciousness" either in philosophy or science, the phrase "consciousness-bearing" is uninformative. — 180 Proof
We also know from QM there is crosstalk between observer and observed, thus establishing the essential sociability of both existence and consciousness. — ucarr
The rest of your post, trafficking as it does in pseudo-science / misinterpreting QM's 'observer effect', doesn't make much sense either except maybe as wishful thinking (i.e. "theology"). — 180 Proof
Lastly, I don't recognize the theisms of Abrahamic, Vedic, or any other pagan faiths in your account, ucarr, so on that point, again, I don't know what you mean by "theism" or, for that matter, "atheism". — 180 Proof
Theism claims God-Spirit dwells beyond the natural world and, moreover, causes its histories and experiences as physical events. — ucarr
But how do we know enough about consciousness to recognize it as a player in the universe in relationship to 'physical' components you refer to as accepted facts? — Paine
Wtf?Is QM's vector-cloud of probability and its collapse not part of the observer effect? — ucarr
IIRC, the "live/dead cat" is only a construct within a thought-experiment that makes explicit some of the ways measurements of quantum phenomena are epistemically inconsistent with classical physics; the "live/dead cat" is not itself an actual phenomenon.Is Shroedinger's cat never super-positioned as a life/death ambiguity?
"Wave functions" are only mathematical structures and not concrete, or real, things (i.e. misplaced concreteness fallacy). Also, there are more than a few interpretations of QM in which "the wave function" does not "collapse", so ...Is the [u[wave function[/u] not hard to establish and easy to collapse within the lab?
Is Shroedinger's cat never super-positioned as a life/death ambiguity?
IIRC, the "live/dead cat" is only a construct within a thought-experiment that makes explicit some of the ways imeasurements of quantum phenomena are epistemically inconsistent with classical physics; the "live/dead cat" is not itself an actual phenomenon. — 180 Proof
I have tried to show that God-Spirit is never alone, was co-created alongside of human. I have tried to say identity is socially negotiated by insight of QM. I have placed the self-and-other dialogue at the core of reality. The gist of my premise, that IAM speak forestalls the isolation of solipsism, abhors a vacuum. Where have I said or suggested the creation is static? — ucarr
Anthromorphizing compositional fallacy at the very least. And, without a clear conception of "consciousness" either in philosophy or science, the phrase "consciousness-bearing" is uninformative. The rest of your post, trafficking as it does in pseudo-science / misinterpreting QM's 'observer effect', doesn't make much sense either except maybe as wishful thinking (i.e. "theology"). Lastly, I don't recognize the theisms of Abrahamic, Vedic, or any other pagan faiths in your account, ucarr, so on that point, again, I don't know what you mean by "theism" or, for that matter, "atheism". — 180 Proof
Anthromorphizing compositional fallacy at the very least. And, without a clear conception of "consciousness" either in philosophy or science, the phrase "consciousness-bearing" is uninformative. The rest of your post, trafficking as it does in pseudo-science / misinterpreting QM's 'observer effect', doesn't make much sense either except maybe as wishful thinking (i.e. "theology"). Lastly, I don't recognize the theisms of Abrahamic, Vedic, or any other pagan faiths in your account, ucarr, so on that point, again, I don't know what you mean by "theism" or, for that matter, "atheism". — 180 Proof
If God was “co-created alongside of human”, what accounts for the dualistic split between the natural( the human as a physical and biological entity) and the spiritual? These two realms seem to be interacting from across an unbridgeable divide. — Joshs
What makes scientific naturalism ‘isolated and solipsistic’ if not as
one pole of a nature-spirit dialectic? In other words , don’t we first have to assume your nature-spirit co-creation , and then by subtracting away God arrive at a solipsistic physical nature? — Joshs
That is, if all there is is the natural , by comparison to what can we call it ‘isolated’? — Joshs
Kant made human conceptualization and empirical nature inseparably co-dependent, — Joshs
Is QM's vector-cloud of probability and its collapse not part of the observer effect?
— ucarr
Wtf? — 180 Proof
I do not understand atheism as an "ideology" or as derived from "axioms". One who claims, as I do, that theism is demonstrably not true and, therefore, disbelieves in every theistic deity, is an atheist. However, most nonbelievers merely say 'I do not believe in God or gods', usually not for specified reasons, but from (lazy) incredulity or lack of the emotional need for a god. In my own case, philosophical naturalism (e.g. Democritean atomism in particular) made sense to me only after I'd recognized at 16 that I, despite 11 years of Catholic indoctrination and observance, disbelieved in the "God of Abraham" for similiar reasons I'd disbelieved in the gods of "pagan" myths, comic book superheroes & magic. In no way I'm aware of, ucarr, does atheism entail anything about existence as such (e.g. "the origin of the universe").Atheism, the ideology of only nature, no God* immerses itself within rational practice with axioms included. — ucarr
:fire:Napoleon: M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its creator.
Laplace: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. — 180 Proof
In no way I'm aware of, ucarr, does atheism entail anything about existence as such (e.g. "the origin of the universe"). — 180 Proof
This is true only of theistic God/gods (of which deism, I think, is a subset).... atheism doesn't dictate any particular position on how (or whether) the universe began... only that whatever it is, God had nothing to do with it.
... the one thing atheism necessarily excludes: i.e. anything involving the existence of God/gods — busycuttingcrap
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.