but Gnomon stops short of claiming it is God.
— Agent Smith

Not any more, he types that he is a deist:
If you insist on putting a label on my philosophical First Cause concept, try Deism
— Gnomon — universeness

Wisdom starts with "I do not know." Deism could be right. There may be a universal god. The religious problem is not the notion of a universal god, but the divisive God of Abraham and the ridiculous Bible stories religious people interpret literally instead of abstractly. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same beginning and prophets, and with Christianity and Islam comes increased superstition. According to the God of Abraham religions there is a God and angels and a Satan and demons. And paradoxically religion is supposed to oppose superstition.

How about this- we do not have all the facts so can we separate the notion of God from the Bible stories? The Bible stories suck, but that does not prove there is no universal god. The best we can do is be okay with not being too sure of ourselves.

I broadly agree, but 'what the word means,' IS a very substantive issue imo. God, science, universe, metaphysics, transcendent, sophist, liar are all words whose contextual meanings are crucial. Depending on what meaning people take from such words, it often cascades into what actions they take in their lives. — universeness

I was talking specifically about the word "metaphysics." It's a subject that is important to me. I'm interested in metaphysics and want to talk about it. I'm not that interested in "metaphysics" and I'm tired of talking about it. That doesn't mean others shouldn't.

For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs. — T Clark

Yes. Over the centuries many influential philosophical worldviews (e.g. Buddhism) have later evolved into popular religions, even though that was not the intent of the originator. For my own purposes, and like my own non-religious worldview, Taoism is a framework for making sense of the complexities & contradictions of the natural world. Any religious practices will merely give practitioners something to do, to make them feel they have some limited control of their destiny. :smile:

PS__ "-ism" indicates a belief system, that may range from "action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence". A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview.

For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs. — T Clark

Yes. Over the centuries many influential philosophical worldviews (e.g. Buddhism) have later evolved into popular religions, even though that was not the intent of the originator. For my own purposes, and like my own non-religious worldview, Taoism is a framework for making sense of the complexities & contradictions of the natural world. Any religious practices will merely give practitioners something to do, to make them feel they have some limited control of their destiny. :smile:

PS__ "-ism" indicates a belief system, that may range from "action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence". A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview.

A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview. — Gnomon

This from the Tao Te Ching, Verse 38, Stephen Mitchell translation:

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos. — Lao Tzu

Well, a little more detail in your 'speculations,' may help more of your readers understand where you are coming from. — universeness

You seem to be asking for empirical "details" for a general non-physical non-specific concept. That desire for physical details may be the same need for concreteness (idolatry), that caused the Hebrews to give-up on Moses's invisible God, and to construct a Golden Calf to worship. If you are really interested in more details the BothAnd Blog (see below) has lots of speculations upon speculations to choose from. Some, you may even agree with. Otherwise, please just accept the amorphous Deity notion as an unproven Axiom to serve as the foundation for a broadly applicable information-centric theory of everything. :smile:


Axiom :
In modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning. In mathematics, an axiom may be a "logical axiom" or a "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are taken to be true within the system of logic they define and are often shown in symbolic form (e.g., (A and B)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Who created God? :
The evolution of god concepts
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page44.html

I am an atheist and a naturalist and I think that application of the scientific method, is the ONLY way to find the answers to any questions about origins. Philosophers can certainly help a great deal, as their musings can make scientists think in ways that can redirect their focus, and can help them discover new approaches for discovering new knowledge. — universeness

I am a non-theist and a naturalist. And I think the "scientific method" is the best way to find answers to empirical questions. But the philosophical methods of inquiry are better suited to formulating plausible answers to non-empirical problems, such as Ontology & Epistemology & Cosmology. If you have no interest in non-physical topics, there's no need for Philosophy. :nerd:

A bit? Would this not mean you would have to abandon your 'analogue' view as the most credible candidate for a universal fundamental? Surely before you think of something such as 'Quark,' you must first tackle what the quark is formed inside of? What is space made of? Does space have 'quantum fluctuations? — universeness

A "bit" (binary digit) was proposed as an information-based analogy to an atom of matter. So what better way to theorize about the beginning of the universe, from an Information-centric perspective? My little scenario of the beginning of the world, is an extrapolation from the philosophical Enformationism thesis. But, if you want scientific credentials, look at physicist John A. Wheeler's "It From Bit" conjecture*1, and his proposals for a Participatory Universe and Anthropic Principle.

As usual, your queries are seeking empirical answers to questions that are non-empirical. For example, the Inflationary-beginning hypothesis is an attempt to provide the kind of concrete facts you seek. Yet, as an imaginary extrapolation from current knowledge of physics, Inflation Theory is not built upon empirical evidence, but of inferred speculations from amorphous temperature patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background*2. :smile:

*1. It from Bit :
Wheeler's "it from bit" concept implies that physics, particularly quantum physics, isn't really about reality, but just our best description of what we observe. There is no "quantum world", just the best description we have of how things will appear to us.
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

*2. Evidence for Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust :
Two groups of scientists announced today (Jan. 30) that a tantalizing signal — which some scientists claimed was "smoking gun" evidence of dramatic cosmic expansion just after the birth of the universe — was actually caused by something much more mundane: interstellar dust.
https://www.space.com/28423-cosmic-inflation-signal-space-dust.html

I was with you for the first few sentences here and then you went to woo woo land.
Why do you decide to plug in a singularity with anthropomorphic 'intent' and invoke the useless god label. Why do you choose to jump from the very rational 'potential to actualize' to ...... god-like-powers. — universeness

I was being deliberately provocative. But, how else can you explain the pre-big-bang and pre-space-time existence of Potential (causal power) and Laws (instructions for organization)? I can think of only two options : Eternal Nature (spaceless-timeless physics) or Eternal Mind (god). And both are beyond the reach of empirical evidence. So, I just used the conventional term for a pre-creation Creative Power. But I have other names, if you find the G-word too-woo-woo-for-you. :joke:

The problem here, is that there is no way we currently know of, to observe the universe in its biggest frame of reference (if 'biggest' makes any sense here). — universeness

. . . . Way! . . . Actually, there is a way to view the universe as a whole system, from a god-like perspective outside the system : Cosmology. It's both a recent scientific venture, and an ancient philosophical conjecture. :cool:

*3. Philosophical cosmology
Cosmology deals with the world as the totality of space, time and all phenomena. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was found in religion. In modern use metaphysical cosmology addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

That is a big responsibility. How might we act on it and manifest a desirable reality? — Athena

The basic means of survival must become free, as a human right, from cradle to grave, alongside free high quality medical care, and free, efficient police, military and political protection with all necessary, very robust, checks and balances in place, which are made as reliable as is possible. Free Education! Education! Education! Global unity and a powerful determination to conquer our primal fears and continue to boldly go where no one has gone before. The utter rejection of all posits that the supernatural exists, until there is irrefutable evidence, that it does. No more scapegoating gods for our own shortfalls. A money free, resource based global economy and a global society, whose main priorities are to maintain a united planet, where the nurture of all people towards the state of 'thriving,' is the imperative, and not a global economy that allows the control of a mostly nefarious, privileged few, who are only interested in excessive personal wealth, power and status. A society that also prioritises protecting the planets ecology, flora and fauna. Personally, I think that would be a good start.

Many ancients thought we were created to help our planet. — Athena

Yeah, a good example of how 'silly' human thinking can get. I think your attempt to connect or corralate such fables with anything of significance in the real human experience is a pure conflation, to say the least, BUT I do respect that YOU see value in it.

. I am really excited by Gnoman's idea of blending the past with the present. — Athena

Which is why I cited your handle in this thread, based on my exchange with Gnomon. You, I think have made a lot of effort in your life to help others, so to me, you sound like one of the good people that are out there. So I like to understand why good people think the way they do about the big questions.

Oh, my love, you do know how to move a conversation forward. — Athena

:lol: Thanks Athena! :flower:

This is so important to the human miracle of intelligence. I believe computers are essential tools and the internet is essential to the New Age. However, we must keep our focus on the importance of humans, and this forum along with Gnoman's replacement of religion may be a part of the New Age. A time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. — Athena

I like your attempts to find common ground between two opposing factions.
Are you convinced that Gnomon is trying to find common ground between science and theism or is it not more like he is trying to find gaps in science that theism or deism can still find sanctuary in? I think you try to do the same but for the reason that you insist on finding value in ancient fables. I think you 'romanticise' ancient folklore and I worry that this is not a good move, in regards to human progression.
I know you and @Gnomon strongly disagree and I am just trying to gain a clear understanding of why.
I don't think science and folklore can ever exist harmoniously, especially when so many people still posit folklore as fact or as the written word of their god.

Yes, things are happening that look bad, but that may be the dark before the dawn. What is essential is how do we react to the bad things that are happening. It is when things become intolerable that we are motivated to create change. I am talking about something AI can not do. Only humans can imagine a better reality and act to manifest it. — Athena

I so hope you are correct Athena. I agree with you about current AI, but not predicted ASI(artificial super-Intelligence.)

We must build civic associations and voluntarily manifest the New Age. Instead of passively sliding into Armageddon. — Athena

:clap: :clap:

And when it comes to AI spell check reminds me constantly of why I do not believe we should rely on AI.
:grimace: Spell check obviously does not know the meaning of what I am saying and it really frightens me that humans will become overly dependent on this technology as we have become overly dependent on government, and people may give up their own power of thinking and acting. — Athena

Systems such as 'Grammarly' are much better than your typical spellchecker, in an app or GPP (General Purpose Package,) such as Microsoft Word, inside Microsoft Office. Grammarly can deal with errors such as 'ever buddy finks it's funny t be a bad spellar,' much better than Microsoft Word's spellchecker. The Word spellchecker only reports 1 error in 'spellar,' it accepts all the rest, in that very poor sentence. Grammarly correctly reports 5 issues with the sentence. That I wont bore you with, by listing them here.
A future ASI will have ability way way way beyond spellcheckers or grammar checkers or any such apps.
We just don't know how 'clever' an ASI could potentially be.

Part of the problem is the technological change to bureaucracy, which is now so impersonal it crushes individual liberty and power. This is the despot of which Tocqueville warned us. — Athena

It's just as possible that an ASI might be very benevolent towards us. Much more so than humans currently are towards other humans.

Deism could be right. There may be a universal god. — Athena

There is NO more evidence for a non-intervening god than there is for an intervening one.
I am interested in the credence level you would assign to deism Athena.
10% for? 90% against? where would you stand?

How about this- we do not have all the facts so can we separate the notion of God from the Bible stories? The Bible stories suck, but that does not prove there is no universal god. The best we can do is be okay with not being too sure of ourselves. — Athena

That's not enough for me Athena. I prefer for people to give me their personal credence level for such posits. This thread is about emergence and I would like to know what you think is emergent in you, in regards to the big questions and in regards to what your personal intents and purposes have been and still are in your life. I ask for credence levels to compare them with my own and to understand a little more about assessing and understanding the intent and purpose of others. People are of course free to choose to not offer such credence levels but that will not stop me asking for such.

There is NO more evidence for a non-intervening god than there is for an intervening one. — universeness

:up:

It's just as possible that an ASI might be very benevolent towards us. Much more so th[an] humans currently are towards other humans. — universeness

:fire:


"We shall take care of them."
"Eminently practical."
"And we shall serve them. And you will be happy. And controlled."

:nerd:

I think the wise passage you quote is better understood with more context ...

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet leaves nothing undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done.
When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order.
Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.
Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower.
Therefore accept the one and reject the other. — Daodejing, Chapter 38, translated by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English, 1989

I was talking specifically about the word "metaphysics." It's a subject that is important to me. — T Clark

I know that, based on the thread you authored on the topic.
I was responding to your more general point that it's more important to discuss the substantive issues involved than focus on, and probably get bogged down, in debate over what the label 'metaphysics' might or might not encompass.
I was merely stating that heated debate about what the term encompasses IS substantive imo, and I have not yet got 'fed up talking about it.' BUT, I also accept that you have probably read much more about the term than I have and have debated the issues involved many more times that I.

You seem to be asking for empirical "details" for a general non-physical non-specific concept. — Gnomon

No, I am interested in the personal credence level you assign to posits such as deism, or the actual existence of a prime mover, creator of the universe, that was/is an eternal mind/conscience, with intent and purpose, that caused it to create/be the vital or divine spark that IS the first and only cause that created this universe. I would also like to know as many details as an interlocuter is willing to offer, regarding why they assign the credence level they do, to such posits, and why they have a need for such.

So what if we took you seriously and formed a civic association to manifest a new belief? — Athena

Please don't take me seriously, because I was not proposing the formation of a Deist religion. Years ago, I participated in a local organization based upon a college student's Deist worldview, which came to be known as Universism*1 --- not to be confused with Universalism. The group included a range of philosophical perspectives, from Atheism, Agnosticism, New Age, to Deism. Almost anything except conventional Western religion.

As a web-based organization, it eventually included members from all parts of the world. So, there is indeed a widespread felt need for some alternative to top-down organized Religion. Unfortunately, it eventually fell apart along the lines of those pre-existing labels I mentioned. Bottom-up religions just don't seem to have enough internal cohesion without some mandatory outside force. Which usually results in the formal creedal organizations they were intended to avoid*2. To enforce cohesion, top-down Religions and Governments seem to be necessary evils, that are riddled with evils of their own.

So, my recommendation is to form loose, non-governmental civic associations to deal with practical civic & social issues, and let your own personal philosophical worldview govern your individual behavior. Meanwhile, I suspect that a "new belief" system is already emerging, along the lines of my own personal Enformationism worldview. Perhaps, by the end of this century that enformed (inter-relationship structured) "belief" will even become common, but not dominant, in the interconnected "participatory" information milieu. :smile:


*1. Universism :
Universism posits that religious philosophy should not be conceived in terms of one's views toward God, but rather the method and attitude with which one approaches religious questions.
http://www.universist.org/

*2. Christianity began with rejection of the Law of Moses that had held Judaism together for centuries, despite their trials & tribulations. But look at Christianity now : the Imperial Roman church and its offspring are crumbling into "spiritual but not religious" segments, searching for freedom from the "creeds of men"

"Eminently practical." "You will be happy. And controlled." — 180 Proof

Loved that Star Trek episode, but I don't think we will be able to throw a future ASI into a shutdown by behaving randomly illogical. :lol: Although it might be worth trying if it's about to make us extinct! :scream:



I don't know much about Taoism. Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading?

I think the wise passage you quote is better understood with more context ... — 180 Proof

I tend to default to the Stephen Mitchell translation. That was the one I got started on. I like the Gia-fu Feng and Jane English version too.

I was responding to your more general point that it's more important to discuss the substantive issues involved than focus on, and probably get bogged down, in debate over what the label 'metaphysics' might or might not encompass. — universeness

As I see it, one of the main causes of pointless discussions here on the forum is the failure to define terms at the beginning. If you want talk about what "consciousness" means, that's fine. But if you want to talk about specific issues related to consciousness and the discussion gets bogged down in arguments about definitions, it's frustrating. When I start a discussion involving metaphysics, I try to be very explicit about what I mean. Even when I do that, I have to struggle to keep the discussion on topic.

I was merely stating that heated debate about what the term encompasses IS substantive imo, and I have not yet got 'fed up talking about it. — universeness

As I noted in my previous post and above, people who are interested in discussing the meaning of "metaphysics" or any other term should do so. I have no issue with that.

When I start a discussion involving metaphysics, I try to be very explicit about what I mean. Even when I do that, I have to struggle to keep the discussion on topic. — T Clark

Yep, I noticed!

Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading? — universeness

:lol: Too much woo for me.

Yeah, I suspected as much when it was recommended to me.
I will scratch it off my list. :up:

A far far less shallow read on the relation of speculative history to contemporary physics (c1993), IIRC, is The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon M. Lederman. I've been meaning to read his follow-up Beyond the God Particle which he co-authored after the LHC confirmation of the Higgs Boson.

I don't know much about Taoism. Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading? — universeness

As I've said many times before, one of the biggest causes of disagreement on the forum, and in philosophy in general, is people mistaking physics for metaphysics and visa versa. The tenets of Taoism are metaphysical principles. The tenets of quantum mechanics are physical, scientific principles. Reading "The Tao of Physics" many years ago was one of the first times I became aware of the difference.

A much less shallow read on the relation of speculative history to contemporary physics (c1993) is The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon M. Lederman. I've been meaning to read his follow-up Beyond the God Particle which he co-authored after the LHC confirmation of the Higgs Boson. — 180 Proof

Yep, could be worth a read, based also on the wiki comment:
Leon M. Lederman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and current Director Emeritus of Fermilab, criticized both The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters in his 1993 book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

is people mistaking physics for metaphysics and visa versa. The tenets of Taoism are metaphysical principles. The tenets of quantum mechanics are physical, scientific principles. Reading "The Tao of Physics" many years ago was one of the first times I became aware of the difference. — T Clark

So, could be a useful read then for those who are not already aware of the difference.

So, could be a useful read then for those who are not already aware of the difference. — universeness

I certainly have no objection. Many people disagree with me on this. On the other hand, would you suggest someone watching "Plan 9 From Outer Space," or "Biodome" with Pauly Shore in order to learn what a good movie is like.

I had to look up Biodome with Pauly Shore, (I did like Jack Black's tenacious D!)
I like to listen to someone passionately talk about a book or song or movie that had a big influence in their life and I like to contemplate their reasoning as they present it.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos changed my life and his books became very important to me also. That is the basis of my interest in what inspires others and why.

I like to listen to someone passionately talk about a book or song or movie that had a big influence in their life and I like to contemplate their reasoning as they present it. — universeness

To be honest, and I'm not trying to be provocative, I gave my daughter a copy of "The God Delusion" as an example of a really bad book.

One man's meat is another man's poison. The only solution is to accommodate as many tastes as possible without compromising individual autonomy.

The only solution is to accommodate as many tastes as possible without compromising individual autonomy. — universeness

Not to be argumentative, but saying something is a matter of taste is not the same as saying it is a matter of opinion. Be that as it may, in either case I agree with your sentiment.

but saying something is a matter of taste is not the same as saying it is a matter of opinion. — T Clark

Well, that's just your opinion on the matter of individual taste!

Well, that's just your opinion on the matter of individual taste! — universeness

I guess we could have a discussion on the meanings of "taste" and "opinion." Let's not and leave things where they are.

No, I am interested in the personal credence level you assign to posits such as deism, or the actual existence of a prime mover, creator of the universe, that was/is an eternal mind/conscience, with intent and purpose, that caused it to create/be the vital or divine spark that IS the first and only cause that created this universe. I would also like to know as many details as an interlocuter is willing to offer, regarding why they assign the credence level they do, to such posits, and why they have a need for such. — universeness

Are you asking for a profession of faith? The god-model of Enformationism is a product of my own imagination, and I believe in it implicitly. Do you have a comprehensive personal worldview? How much credence do you place in its tenets? Incredulity toward alternative creeds, even those that are held by billions of rational humans, is a sign of healthy skepticism. But blanket skepticism is self-sabotaging for a philosopher.

FYI, I don't believe that the ultimate mind-model of Enformationism is Real : instead it is Ideal, an idea, a general concept, a universal*1. A god-model is useful only to the degree it can be instantiated in the particular world. For example, we observe instances of human creativity in the Arts & Sciences, of which the postulated Creator is the exemplar. We know of things taking on novel forms in Evolution, due to selection of instances of fitness, and the Enformer is the epitome (perfection) of enforming. Natural Selection chooses entities based on fitness criteria. And the Programmer of the evolutionary algorithm is the ultimate critic of fitness. Or, did you believe Nature "just happened" for no reason? If so, I have some fairy stories for you.

Except for proposing a hypothetical philosophical Origin Story, Enformationism is a form of Humanism*2. Like ancient Philosophy, it proposes an ultimate Cause & Reason for the logical organization of the physical & metaphysical realms of the world : e.g. Logos. Like modern Deism it bases its frame for finite Reality upon the Axiom of Infinite Potential. Physical Science gives us reasons to believe that the world began billions of years ago, like a seed with the potential to become a great oak.

But materialist science emerged in the middle of a long-running story, and meekly accepts the mysterious emergence of Nature from the unknown without question. So, unlike Philosophy, it has no need for conceptual germs or implicit potentials. Yet, since we observe "intents & purposes" in the space-time world, why not look for evidence of a kernal of Potential in the beginning? Personally, what scientists blandly call the mathematical "Singularity" preceding the Big Bang, is a likely candidate for the Program of Enformation that drives Evolution. Do you have a better idea? :smile:

PS__I don't believe in ideals such as Democracy, except as they serve as a guide to practice in the real world. I place no credence in anything outside of space-time, except to the extent that it provides a starting point for logical reasoning : Axiom.

*1. Universals :
In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.
___Wiki

*2. Humanism :
***An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
***A system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual.
***Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.