180 Proof, for my money, has one gripe against your theory viz. the fact that it seems impossible to retain design (Enformy, teleology, etc.) without a designer implicit. So thought you try valiantly to distance yourself from religion, it comes off as incoherent at best or deception at worst.

Another thing, please take this as constructive criticism, your theory relies on controversy (dueling physicists) rather than solid facts - its home is in the darkness of our ignorance rather than the light of our knowledge. Given your caliber, I'm expecting a first class response from you. — Agent Smith

I appreciate your "constructive criticism" by contrast with 180boo's dueling physicists. Although you have been influenced by the anti-design arguments, you remain open-minded to alternatives*1.

Yes, I have concluded that the apparent design*2 -- the "marvelous structure" (Einstein) -- of the universe logically implies a designer, planner, creator. That's why Einstein, and several of the founding fathers of Quantum Theory reached that same conclusion. So, since 180boo responds to my theories with dueling physicists, I'll be glad to let him argue with Einstein. What say you : does the "comprehensibility" of the universe imply a random accidental origin, or an intentional designer*3 of some kind? Even Atheists admit that the emergence of a self-organizing system of Causation (energy) & Regulation (laws) requires something more than shuffling cards for a long, long time.

I have indeed, distanced myself from all religions -- including the indoctrination of my childhood. And I have no inclination to worship the Enformer of my own thesis. It's just an idea. But it's an informed idea : a philosophical hypothesis, like Plato's Logos*4. Since there is no empirical proof for any of the postulated precedents of our universe, your guess is as valid as mine, but mine has a detailed thesis (philosophical argument) to support that logical conclusion.

Regarding "controversy" vs "solid facts", are you aware of any philosophical concept that is uncontroversial? It's the job of empirical science to provide "solid facts" to put an end to controversies, such as phlogiston. But, are you aware of any "solid facts" that terminate all Ontological questions? Are you afraid of controversial topics and the darkness of our Ignorance? If so, you should shy away from philosophical forums. :smile:


*1. I too, reject the magical implications of Intelligent Design proponents, but not necessarily the physical & philosophical evidence they present. As you well know, I don't depend on Biblical authority to support my ideas. Instead of the Instantaneous Design by Fiat of Genesis, I have adopted the Gradual Design by Evolution of Darwinian Teleology. I simply call it "Intelligent Evolution", guided by Laws, not by Chance.

*2. What is the basic definition of design? :
to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

*3.  The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- I don't quote the Bible to support the Enformer hypothesis, but the opinions of professional scientists. So, the Enformer is not identical with any of the traditional creator gods, but merely a novel theoretical Principle derived from 21st century science. AFAIK, that hypothetical entity is worshiped by no religion, and has made no threats of eternal damnation. Hence, it's no more scary than the only viable alternative : an eternal regression of self-existent & self-organizing worlds (Multiverse).

*4. LOGOS :
With Plato the story gets a bit more complex, since he had a variety of ways he used this term. Maybe the most straightforward one would be the understanding of logos as opposed to mythos (μῦθος), where logos is perceived as the true, analytical account.
In Phaedo, Plato explained that the characteristic of the true knowledge is the ability to give account, logos, of what one knows. In Theatetus, Socrates described logos as the distinguishable characteristic of a thing.
With Aristotle, we approach the definition of logos that is close to Latin ratio, as well as the modern notion of logos. Aristotle understood logos as the reason and rationality, especially in the ethical sense.
He also used it in the meaning of a mathematical proportion, which we can see in the English word ratio, but this can probably be traced back to Pythagoras.
https://www.pbs.org/theogloss/logos-body.html

Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions. — Art48

I wonder how much you've really thought through these statements. You don't elaborate much about it, so you end up with cliche: science good/true/real, religion bad/false/fictional.

This is right out of recent critiques of Christianity from the likes of Richard Dawkins and company. There's something to these claims, but in a very specific sense, concerning Biblical literalists and creationists. It presupposes a philosophy of science and religion which I don't agree with anyway, and the narrow analysis that "New Atheists" do make is done on the basis of this philosophical background. But it strikes me now as scientism. (Which I'm still mostly a part of, by the way.)

Science is just another kind of religion, from one point of view. An important and powerful one -- but also very destructive. I think we should start thinking from this point of view, instead of a mutually exclusive one. Both science and religion make philosophical assumptions because both ultimately arise from human questions and human concerns.

The universe is an objective reality and science has converged to a worldview that mirrors that reality. Ask a physicist, chemist, or biologist in Italy, Iran, and India a question and you get the same answer. — Art48

No you don't. You get many interpretations in science as well, some of which converge. This correspondence view of truth, where we can "mirror" reality of the outside, objective world, should really be abandoned. Fine to talk about in everyday life, but is itself an interpretation of the world and of truth.

But if God is an objective reality, then why haven’t religions converged? If we assume there is one universal reality, we would expect different people of different times in different countries to have insights which converge. Shouldn’t religions “done right” converge? But they don’t. Might the reason be their faulty “way of knowing,” their childlike epistemological method? — Art48

(1) Religions "done right" certainly do converge in many ways and through many cultures. Even when they're not done right, in fact.

(2) If we're going to focus solely on where religions differ (which they do, in many ways and through many cultures), then we should also say that science (the supposedly "non-faulty" epistemological method) also differs; examples abound. If you cannot think of any, then you're not reasoning fully.

Think about it for a minute: why these generalizations? They're not justified, in my view. Just in terms of looking around, not even due to any deep disagreement about epistemology.

In hindsight, at least in the Western tradition, philosophy concerns – began with – critiques of religion (i.e. magical thinking) — 180 Proof

Why do you say this? I see little evidence for it.

In hindsight, at least in the Western tradition, philosophy concerns – began with – critiques of religion (i.e. magical thinking)
— 180 Proof

Why do you say this? I see little evidence for it. — Mikie

Read "the Presocratics", Plato's early-middle Socratic Dialogues, Aristotle, Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus, Lucretius, Epictetus ...

In hindsight, at least in the Western tradition, philosophy concerns – began with – critiques of religion (i.e. magical thinking) which, in effect, makes space for non-religious narratives and the defeasible, critical reasoning that underwrites the natural (& historical) sciences. — 180 Proof

Or, at a minimum, as the exploration of alternatives to religious modes of understanding, emphasizing the intellect and critical reasoning, giving us the proto-philosophy and proto-science of e.g. Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Eleatic Monists, the Greek atomists, etc. (and of course Plato, Aristotle, and eventually all of subsequent western philosophy as we now know and recognize it)

:up:

I appreciate your "constructive criticism" by contrast with 180boo's dueling physicists. Although you have been influenced by the anti-design arguments, you remain open-minded to alternatives*1. — Gnomon

Stop the name calling. You are more than capable of criticism without insults. Or ignoring them.

I’ve read every one of those men. Hence “I see little evidence for it.”

The narrative that these men were essentially primitive scientists is unconvincing.

I only read a small portion of the New Theology PDF but I will say that whoever developed it doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of religion in general or in some of the specifics, from what I read.

the exploration of alternatives to religious modes of understanding — busycuttingcrap

What would “religious modes of understanding” be?

Again, the claim that these early thinkers were just proto/primitive scientists (in todays sense) is just projection. Every one of the early Greeks were religious— all believed in the gods and spoke of such, all were educated in Homer.

It’s really just part of the mischaracterization of “religion,” in my view. Also a product of the long reaction to Christianity — of which the Greeks knew exactly nothing.

Stop the name calling. You are more than capable of criticism without insults. Or ignoring them. — fdrake

Don't worry. It's our little not-so-private running joke. This diabolical dialog has been going on for several years. 180 calls me by a slew of sarcastic names, and I indirectly return the favor with tongue-in-cheek, except that I'm not nearly as creative or prolific in my labels.

I tried to ignore 180's insults long ago, but he just can't let it go. So, now I don't respond directly, and address my answers to Agent Smith -- who is in on the joke -- because he serves as a middle man between two posters who have stopped talking (civilly) to each other. FWIW, 180 seems to be serious about his anti-metaphysical mission, but I'm just kidding. And, mommy, he hit me first!!! :joke:

Philosopher-on-Philosopher Insults :
But for truly epic bitchiness and egotism, you need look no further than that most storied and venerable of academic disciplines: philosophy! The history of Western thought is peppered with thinkers taking aim at their peers — sometimes in a genteelly intellectual manner, and sometimes… um, less so (yes, Friedrich Nietzsche, this means you)
https://www.flavorwire.com/469065/the-30-harshest-philosopher-on-philosopher-insults-in-history

The narrative that these men were essentially primitive scientists is unconvincing. — Mikie

Can you say how/why it is unconvincing? I find it close to undeniable, in at least a couple important senses: the presocratic Greek philosophers were not only interested in philosophical topics, but also in ones we would now characterize as belonging to the empirical sciences- many/most of them were attempting to explain physical phenomena in terms of natural causes and material constituents, rather than theistic/religious ones, and in particular the pursuit to identify the material principle or fundamental constituent of the physical world (water for Thales, air for Anaximenes, etc) in the same sort of ontologically reductionist sense that e.g. particle physics attempts to identify the fundamental material constituents of reality in contemporary science.

And, importantly, they sought to do this by applying the intellect and critical reasoning, rather than appealing to religious myth or tradition (and some of them explicitly criticized religious/theistic thinking).

So, the rational investigation of the natural world via the application of the critical intellect, with explanations in terms of natural causes and material principles rather than gods or spirits. How is that not proto-science? Not to mention the line of influence and continuity that can be traced from these early philosophical and proto-scientific endeavors, through Aristotle and beyond (up to/including most of western philosophy and even modern science)?

Ok.

Every one of the early Greeks were religious— all believed in the gods and spoke of such, all were educated in Homer. — Mikie

Most of them were at any rate. But they generally didn't invoke gods or spirits as (intellectually/rationally impenetrable) causes or explanations in their capacity as natural philosophers, but looked for natural or physical causes or explanations, or for those who still did invoke gods, to subject them to rational scrutiny and argumentation, abandoning mythology and religious tradition in favor of something closer to what we would now call philosophy or natural science.

But you're certainly right that they weren't just proto-scientists, they were sort of generalists or jacks-of-all-trades, since science, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, religion, mythology, and so on were sort of all bundled together and indistinct from one another at that point. But what people generally mean- at least what I mean- when they talk of the presocratics as primitive or proto-scientists is this introduction of a rationalistic method for investigating the physical world, and the influence and continuity between these early investigations and the later emergence/development of philosophy and science as distinct domains.

The other notable thing, which I believe is what 180 is highlighting, is this development of breaking away from understanding the world primarily in religious terms, and even in some instances of providing explicit critique of existing religious traditions or ideas. They were thus providing an alternative way of looking at the world that would eventually develop into what we now recognize as science, naturalism, atheism, and so forth. Certainly, they weren't scientists in the ordinary, contemporary sense of the term, but they were important and influential in the eventual development of these intellectual traditions (and so hence the characterization as "proto-science")..

The other notable thing, which I believe is what 180 is highlighting, is this development of breaking away from understanding the world primarily in religious terms, and even in some instances of providing explicit critique of existing religious traditions or ideas, providing an alternative way of looking at the world that would eventually develop into what we now recognize as science, naturalism, atheism, and so forth. — busycuttingcrap

Exactly. :up:

@Mikie seems to have missed (or deliberately misread) this point.

Most of them were at any rate. But they generally didn't invoke gods or spirits as (intellectually/rationally impenetrable) causes or explanations in their capacity as natural philosophers, — busycuttingcrap

The gods were as natural to the Greeks as what we currently call natural, in my view. But who exactly fo you have in mind? Democritus? Thales? Parmenides?

or deliberately misread — 180 Proof

I didn’t misread it. I know exactly what was said— and I know it’s exactly wrong.

Certainly, they weren't scientists or atheists in the ordinary, contemporary sense of these words, but they were important in the eventual development of these things (and so hence the characterization as "proto-science"). — busycuttingcrap

They were important in the development of nearly everything in the West. Including Christianity. Should we call them proto-Christians? (Many have made that claim too.)

I think the problem here is the meaning of religion and science, in part.

this development of breaking away from understanding the world primarily in religious terms — busycuttingcrap

I think the understanding of the world changed. I don’t think the characterization of going from “religious terms” (here apparently equated with superstitions on par with Santa Claus) to naturalistic ones (and hence proto-science) is accurate. I think that’s a story that’s been perpetuated without evidence, and gone mostly unquestioned.

Ok. :roll:

The gods were as natural to the Greeks as what we currently call natural, in my view. But who exactly fo you have in mind? Democritus? Thales? Parmenides? — Mikie

Sure, there's some truth to that, but like I said, the difference was that they weren't invoking gods or spirits as causes for natural phenomena for the most part. They were interested in physical causes and explanations, as in the pursuit of the material principle or fundamental physical constituents we see with Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and the atomists Democratus and Leucippus. I'm not sure how one can miss or deny the parallel between this project, and the similarly ontological reductionist theories of modern particle physics.

So again, the sense in which they were proto-scientists (though they weren't just proto-scientists, but also proto-logicians and proto-ethicists and proto-theologians and so on) is:

- the attempt to understand the world through rational investigation and critical reflection, as opposed to appealing to religious myths
- the attempt to understand the physical constitution and causal mechanisms of the physical world
- the influence and continuity between these endeavors and later philosophy/science

And since they say it better than I could, I'll quote the SEP passage on the legacy of the presocratics, which emphasizes their role as "proto-scientists":

The range of Presocratic thought shows that the first philosophers were not merely physicists (although they were certainly that). Their interests extended to religious and ethical thought, the nature of perception and understanding, mathematics, meteorology, the nature of explanation, and the roles of matter, form, causal mechanisms, and structure in the world. Almost all the Presocratics seemed to have something to say about embryology, and fragments of Diogenes and Empedocles show a keen interest in the structures of the body; the overlap between ancient philosophy and ancient medicine is of growing interest to scholars of early Greek thought (Longrigg 1963, van der Eijk 2008). Recent discoveries, such as the Derveni Papyrus, show that interest in and knowledge of the early philosophers was not necessarily limited to a small audience of rationalistic intellectuals. They passed on many of what later became the basic concerns of philosophy to Plato and Aristotle, and ultimately to the whole tradition of Western philosophical thought.

- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/#PreLeg

Maybe find a place between listing a bunch of names and rolling your eyes like a schoolgirl.

If that’s too vague, I’ll make it more specific: of the names you listed, what statement (from any of them, even the non-Greeks) really stands out to you as supporting your narrative?

Sure, there's some truth to that, but like I said, the difference was that they weren't invoking gods or spirits as causes for natural phenomena for the most part. — busycuttingcrap

But who was, exactly? Were people attributing the effects of gravity to invisible angels pulling strings prior to Newton? Did Newton stop being a Christian at any point? Doesn’t seem so…

That Apollo pulls the sun on his chariot or Eros causes desire through arrows isn’t really what was abandoned. Mostly because it never really existed in the sense we think— but even if it did, these “supernatural” phenomena continued on well after Thales.

I think what changed was the understanding of phusis.

They were important in the development of nearly everything in the West. Including Christianity. Should we call them proto-Christians? (Many have made that claim too.) — Mikie

Absolutely they were, no disagreement on that point. As for "proto-Christians", that strikes me as a bit of a stretch, but I did just call them "proto-theologians" in the comment I just posted before reading this reply so its not that far off the mark.

I think the understanding of the world changed. I don’t think the characterization of going from “religious terms” (here apparently equated with superstitions on par with Santa Claus) to naturalistic ones (and hence proto-science) is accurate. I think that’s a story that’s been perpetuated without evidence, and gone mostly unquestioned. — Mikie

Right, and they were at least partially responsible for this change (although I imagine its a bit of a chicken/egg situation). And I'm not equating religious or mythological understanding with "superstitions on par with Santa Claus"- I don't think that's a useful characterization, at the very least its over-simplistic to the point of inaccuracy.

But I also don't see how one can deny that the presocratic Greek philosophers were engaging in an intellectual and rationalistic endeavor that contrasted significantly with traditional religious understandings of the world, that their methods and their areas of interest bear some important similarities with what we now understand as natural science, or that their work was influential and important for the subsequent development of science (and philosophy, and logic, and ethics, and theology, and so on). This is the dominant understanding of the presocratics legacy (as quite adequately expressed in the above SEP quote), because its what the evidence supports, and that evidence is primarily our ancient sources themselves.

"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion." ~Spinoza

Stick with @busycuttingthecrap since I'm not patient enough to spoon feed you anymore that I already have. So you don't agree with my interpretation of the early Western philosophical tradition? Okay, suit yourself, but stop whining dogmatically at me about it.

since I'm not patient enough to spoon feed you anymore that I already have. — 180 Proof

You’re either not patient enough or can’t do it. I suspect the latter, actually. But in neither case did you ever spoon feed me anything. What you did was list a bunch of names that any undergraduate could and said “read.”

That’s not spoon feeding, it’s posturing.

stop whining dogmatically — 180 Proof

Not once have I “whined.” And you’re looking far more dogmatic than I am, given you’re the one that’s refusing to defend your thesis one iota.

A simple “I don’t feel like it” would be fine. Given that you do so often, I would wonder why you bother with a philosophy forum in the first place— but at least it’d be honest.

"So, by this concept, nature – the universe / multiverse – is merely the physical aspect of a greater, non-physical entity (deity, creator, process) aka "Enformer" ... and yet, Gnomon, there is not any evidence for or sound argument demonstrating that in order for nature to be intelligible, and explicable, nature requires a non-physical entity ("Enformer") of which to be a part."

As usual, 180 {insert denigratory label here} seems to be insisting that "nature requires a physical entity" in order to be intelligible, as Einstein remarked. That's why he rejects my hypothesis of an entity that pre-dates the Big Bang (yes, I'm aware of the north-of-the-north-pole retort). Ironically, my theoretical Enformer is generally amenable to Spinoza's deus sive natura (nature god), except that Baruch's worldview was based on an eternal physical world.

I merely update his 17th century deity definition in view of our modern understanding : that the physical universe is not eternal, but emerged from "north-of-the-north-pole" -- along with space-time & energy-law -- into measurable reality only a fraction of a light-year ago. So, I merely ask the obvious philosophical question : when & where was the deus in the "time before time". Is that a legitimate philosophical query?

The notion of a "natural deity" was addressed by physicist Paul Davies, in his 1983 book : God and the New Physics*1*2. In a chapter regarding the theological/cosmological notion of "the end of the universe", he noted : "There are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a natural Deity". That seems to be what Spinoza intended. Yet Davies then continued : "to invoke God as a blanket explanation of the explained is to invite eventual falsification, and to make God the friend of ignorance". [my bold]

That said, he offered an alternative to a "natural deity", that couldn't explain the origin of temporal Nature itself. In the final chapter of the book, Davies made a disclaimer about Truth : "Physics . . . is not about truth at all, but about models" Likewise, my own Cosmological theory makes no claim on absolute truth. It's merely a philosophical model representing one possible way to understand the ultimate Ontological questions, which are not addressed at all by Physics.

So Davies merely posits a meta-physical (noological*2) notion for consideration : "The existence of mind, for example, as an abstract, holistic, organizational pattern, capable even of disembodiment, refutes the reductionist philosophy that we are nothing but moving mounds of atoms". In following books, he further explored the application of Information Theory -- and its close inter-relationship with Mind -- to those Ontological & Cosmological questions that might possibly offer some philosophical insights into the gaping gap that lies above and beyond the north pole, and the Big Bang. How better to make the natural world "intelligible" (comprehensible) to human minds, that to construct it out of non-physical mental stuff : Enformation (energy + law = power to enform) ? :smile:


*1. God and the New Physics :
https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/0671528068

*2. "New Physics" is a reference to Quantum Theory, compared to Newton's old-fashioned mechanical physics.

*2. Noology, derives from the ancient Greek words νοῦς, nous or "mind" and λόγος, logos. Noology thus outlines a systematic study and organization of thought, knowledge and the mind. ___Wiki

That Apollo pulls the sun on his chariot or Eros causes desire through arrows isn’t really what was abandoned. Mostly because it never really existed in the sense we think— but even if it did, these “supernatural” phenomena continued on well after Thales. — Mikie

Well sure, no one ever said otherwise- the claim isn't that the presocratic philosophers extinguished or eliminated all religious or supernatural understandings of the natural world and its causal mechanisms, I'm saying that their project of investigating the world via reason and intellect and argument and explaining things in terms of physical principles or mechanisms represented an alternative to religious/supernatural understandings of the world, and which ultimately laid some important groundwork for and led to our western philosophic and scientific traditions. But unless you give me some positive argument or explanation as to why this account is unconvincing or inaccurate, I'm not sure what else to say except to agree to disagree.

(I also can't help but point out, for what it's worth- and don't take this as a fallacious appeal to authority, as that's not the intention- that none of this is considered controversial in scholarly circles, as in the SEP quote above the scholarly consensus is that the presocratic Greeks were "certainly" physicists, meteorologists, psychologists, etc... in addition to being philosophers, theologians, and ethicists. They were proto-scientists, just as they were proto-logicians and proto-theologians, and all the rest)

:lol: Typical willfully pathetic misreading just to evade the inconvenient questions raised in what I wrote. Yeah, okay, Happy New Year to you too, Gnomon. :sparkle:

Superb! :clap: :clap:

I believe your arch foe is William of Occam; metaphysics was always a bit superfluous.

What if I told you that Enformy is a phantasm, an illusion like e.g. the Wagon Wheel effect? How would you respond?

I believe your arch foe is William of Occam; metaphysics was always a bit superfluous.
What if I told you that Enformy is a phantasm, an illusion like e.g. the Wagon Wheel effect? How would you respond? — Agent Smith

Every generalization*1 is imaginary -- including "Energy", as the invisible*2 cause of all physical effects -- because it is not an empirical observation, but a rationalization (abstraction) from many specific instances to a single holistic conceptualization*3. You won't find any wild Abstractions in the Natural world, because they are denizens of the philosophical Mind -- which is not a tangible thing, but an abstract concept.

What if I said that Energy is a "phantasm" or "fantasy"? Can you show me a physical instance of Energy? Have you ever seen a Photon, which is purportedly the "carrier" of Energy, as a pickup truck carries a load of dirt? Is Energy a feature of your reality? If so, why not accept Enformy, which is merely an information-theoretic term, linking Causation with Organization. Energy is metaphysical, because it has to be inferred instead of observed. Raw energy (random change) is like an atomic bomb, ruthlessly destroying all orderly structures in the vicinity. By contrast, Enformy is the notion of Energy-plus-Regulation (natural law) that non-randomly produces order & organization in the world. The pay-off of "success" for Enformy may be the advent of Culture in a Natural world. Would you prefer to go back to a pre-human pre-metaphysical state-of-nature : red in tooth & claw? Unfortunately, on this forum metaphysical arguments too often become red in ridicule & dis-respect.

Your skeptical questions are relevant -- and I enjoy responding to them -- but they reflect the influence of modern prejudice against Metaphysics, which is merely ideas-about-ideas. Physical Science has allowed some "successful" Materialists to feel superior to "feckless" Philosophers, who have nothing to show for their word-shuffling & idea-shoveling. Ironically, most of the posters on this forum have never successfully produced any objective physical objects that add to the "progress" of Science. Instead, they deal in ideas about ideas (e.g. notion of "progress"), which is what Metaphysics*4 is all about. So, they cut the ground from under their own feet, by denigrating the reasoning that generalizes from instances.

Therefore, Ockham*5 is not a foe of Enformationism, but of unnecessary complexity of conceptualization. I consider Enformy to be a simplification of Negentropy which is a superfluous double negative. The thesis could be considered a form of Nominalism, in that it is all about Essences, like Energy & Enformy :smile:

*1. Generalization :
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

*2. 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

*3. Induction :
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence.
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

*4. Metaphysics and Philosophy of Religion :
Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important. Philosophy of religion explores and evaluates religious views of reality and seeks to understand religious practice. Metaphysics chiefly addresses questions about what is ultimately real and important.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/philosophy-metaphysics-and-philosophy-of-religion
Note -- Can you distinguish the general "philosophy of religion" from the specific doctrines & practices of world religions?

*5. Ockham Metaphysics :
In metaphysics, Ockham champions nominalism, the view that universal essences, such as humanity or whiteness, are nothing more than concepts in the mind. He develops an Aristotelian ontology, admitting only individual substances and qualities.
https://iep.utm.edu/ockham/
Note -- Essences are meta-physical because they are nominal, merely names for concepts that are not knowable by physical senses.

Given that we're doing metaphysics, I suppose my and others' very non-metaphysical criticisms are out of place. Reminds of @Bartricks's rule: it hasta make sense and from my interactions with your philosophy, it makes sense alright. Positing entities and forces e.g. Enformy are part and parcel of theorizing/hypothesizing, a very scientific activity. So here's what I think is the good news - Enformationism explains well enough the goings on in the world; now the bad news - Enformationism doesn't make any predictions which could be tested. Is me foot in me mouth? Have I cleared you of all charged and still declared you guilty?