Well, the state of relative peace is better than nothing. The better you understand life it becomes easier to achieve relative peace. — MoK

But if there is nothing that guarantees that I may not fall from such a state of 'relative peace' (assuming that it is a positive state), then such a state is not possible (for instance, in traditional theism, God is the foundation of the stability of the beatitude of the blessed).
Also, if it is too similar to the present life - after all, if it is seen as a perpetual struggle, the comparison is IMO apt - I am not sure how it is better than nothing. If I really think that this life will last forever, well I think it will be at a certain point unbereable (due to boredom... after all, finite goods can give finite happiness).

Is there a downside to accepting that "feeling" of change in the objective world and the practical effects of willful behavior? I feel older and wiser than I did at 18. Am I just naive, or deceiving myself that I can be an agent of change in the world? When I imagine that I'm driving my car to the grocery store, was that destination destined by God or Fate 14b years before I was born? If my free agency is a mirage, will I go hungry waiting for the world to bend to my will? :snicker: — Gnomon

The problem IMO is that you seem to want it both ways. On the one hand, the Whole, i.e. God in your view, is ultimately changeless. On the other hand, you seem to think that change is ultimately real for us and that we are free.

But my question is: how can our perception of change be veridical if the Whole (of which we are mere aspects or maybe 'parts') is changeless? how can we have free will, i.e. a degree of autonomy, if we are mere aspects/modes/parts of God, who is changeless?

The problem IMO is that you seem to want it both ways. On the one hand, the Whole, i.e.God in your view, is ultimately changeless. On the other hand, you seem to think that change is ultimately real for us and that we are free.
But my question is: how can our perception of change be veridical if the Whole (of which we are mere aspects or maybe 'parts') is changeless? how can we have free will, i.e. a degree of autonomy, if we are mere aspects/modes/parts of God, who is changeless? — boundless

Yes. I think we can have it both ways. But no, unlike Spinoza, I don't think G*D/Whole/Enfernity/Logos is changeless. A static do-nothing deity could not be creative, and our evolving world would not be compatible with an inert cosmos-creator. I don't have any empirical knowledge of anything outside of our space-time world. So anything I might say about Enfernity (eternity-infinity) is pure speculation. But, I would interpret Enfernity as unlimited & boundless, hence free to change in all possible ways. For all I know, a boundless Supreme Being might have created an infinite number of universes, with all possible modes of existence. But I don't waste my time trying to make sense of such literal non-sense.

Instead, I prefer to imagine the First Cause of our universe as an unlimited Pool of Potential, within which anything is Possible, but only certain things are Actual. And the process of Actualization is what we call Creation or Evolution. So, in the space-time world we actually know something about, homo sapiens seems to be the current highest-ranking mode of existence. But evolution is still on-going, so who-knows what kind of creature might, in the future, replace humanity at the top of the food chain (AI ; aliens)? At this point in time though, earthbound humans seem to have a much higher degree of freedom to choose from the menu of options the world has to offer. For example, brainy dolphins eat only fish, while we omnivores eat veggies, fish, beef and chicken.

That's not the FreeWill of an all-powerful deity, but it's enough to allow our species to be the dominant force in the real actual world. As the most invasive species, we even make our own night light to show aliens or gods where we live. In the 21st century, the whole Earth is our habitat, including the moon, and maybe Mars. So, we are not "mere modes of God", but the only "aspects" of God that rule the Real world with our god-like magical technology. :smile:

But if there is nothing that guarantees that I may not fall from such a state of 'relative peace' (assuming that it is a positive state), then such a state is not possible (for instance, in traditional theism, God is the foundation of the stability of the beatitude of the blessed). — boundless

A state of relative peace is possible.

Also, if it is too similar to the present life - after all, if it is seen as a perpetual struggle, the comparison is IMO apt - I am not sure how it is better than nothing. If I really think that this life will last forever, well I think it will be at a certain point unbereable (due to boredom... after all, finite goods can give finite happiness). — boundless

Correct. Life becomes boring if it is eternal.

if I recall correctly, believed that absolutely everything was inevitable — boundless

In other words, every possibility is a necessity, modal collapse? Good post btw, keep it coming.

In other words, are you saying that God/Whole determines all the possibilities but the actualities are determined or co-determined by the rational agents?
And maybe also by other phenomena?
In other words, God 'fixes' all thepossible histories but the actual one is co-determined?

I'm not sure how this doesn't lead to a theistic or theistic-like perspective (i.e. that God creates and sustaines but at the same time the creatures maintain an identity that is distinct from the Creator), but I'll wait your answers before delving into this.

Correct. Life becomes boring if it is eternal. — MoK

To be fair, I should have added that boredom would not the only one reason that after a certain point such an endless life would be unbereable. But in any case, I'm not sure how you have not conceded my point, i.e. that such a 'relative perfection' is undesiderable. We seem to agree that an endless life with only finite goods becomes after a certain point unbereable. Yet, you seem to say that a state of 'relative perfection' is 'better than nothing'. How can an 'endless unbeareable life' be better than 'nothing'?

In other words, every possibility is a necessity, modal collapse? Good post btw, keep it coming. — Lionino

Thanks!

Yep, but note that in Spinoza's philosophy such a necessity is not an 'intrinsic characteristic' of the modes, but when considered as 'modes-of-substance', i.e. when seen 'under the perspective of eternity' (sub specie aeternitatis), all modes are actually necessary 'manifestations' of the attributes of God. In other words, when seen as themselves - i.e. abstracted from the Substance/God - they are contingent. But this perspective is ultimately illusory and therefore, ultimately, according to Spinoza, it is true that even the modes are necessary (but seen in this perspective, they are not individuals anymore).

The whole point is why would a perfect god create this kind of game of hide-and-seek of his "blessedness" and "good and evil"? — schopenhauer1

I wanted to elaborate on this point, again.

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that God exists and created the world and humans as finite rational agents who have an essential desire to be united with the Good (i.e. God if some kind of theism is true), even if they are not aware of fully aware of it.

Now, as I understand it, the philosopher Thomas Talbott makes a very interesting argument: maybe it is impossible to come into existence as fully developed rational beings, maybe in order to fully develop as self-aware rational agents we need some kind of contrast and frustration. For instance, I need to be aware of the distinction between 'me' and what is 'not me' in order to develop a rational mind. However, this awareness might only develop due to some kind of contrast: what is 'not me' doesn't respond always to my wishes. So, the frustration I experience is actually a way to learn, to be more self-aware. Also, at least the awareness of the possibility to make evil or bad choices makes me aware of the distinction between good and evil, good and bad. Also, seeing bad outcomes of evil/bad choices is actually a way to learn why bad choices are bad. And so on.

So, maybe some amount of suffering as well as at least the possibility to do evil and to make bad choices, is inevitable in order to develop into truly rational beings.

Note, of course, that this argument doesn't say that all suffering and the evil we experience in the world is 'necessary' or 'meaningful'. Also, it's not meant to be a complete 'theodicy' but only a possible explanation to why a 'learning process' might be actually necessary.

In other words, when seen as themselves - i.e. abstracted from the Substance/God - they are contingent. But this perspective is ultimately illusory and therefore, ultimately, according to Spinoza, it is true that even the modes are necessary (but seen in this perspective, they are not individuals anymore). — boundless

Interesting. There is a revised version of Gödel's ontological proof of God that entails modal collapse because of the given definition of God.

Interesting. There is a revised version of Gödel's ontological proof of God that entails modal collapse because of the given definition of God. — Lionino

Thanks for the reference. Anyway, for the sake of completeness, some scholars disagree with the 'necessitarian' interpretation of Spinoza. However, IMO necessatarianism is the consistent way to interpret is thought.

To be fair, I should have added that boredom would not the only one reason that after a certain point such an endless life would be unbereable. But in any case, I'm not sure how you have not conceded my point, i.e. that such a 'relative perfection' is undesiderable. We seem to agree that an endless life with only finite goods becomes after a certain point unbereable. — boundless

Perhaps good is not finite. If it is and life is eternal then we are in trouble.

Yet, you seem to say that a state of 'relative perfection' is 'better than nothing'. How can an 'endless unbeareable life' be better than 'nothing'? — boundless

Well, either the state of relative perfection or the state of suffering. Which one do you pick? By nothing I didn't mean permanent death.

↪Gnomon
In other words, are you saying that God/Whole determines all the possibilities but the actualities are determined or co-determined by the rational agents?
And maybe also by other phenomena?
In other words, God 'fixes' all the possible histories but the actual one is co-determined?
I'm not sure how this doesn't lead to a theistic or theistic-like perspective (i.e. that God creates and sustaines but at the same time the creatures maintain an identity that is distinct from the Creator), but I'll wait your answers before delving into this. — boundless

That's not what I'm saying. I assume that all actualities/realities can be traced back to the beginning of space-time. Beyond which we can only conjecture. And the Cause of that sudden appearance of limited spatial volume and temporal change from whatever came before that beginning (Enfernity??) is what we humans typically call "G*D" or "Multiverse".

During the expansion of space-time most emergent Actualities result from natural energy exchanges. But, since the recent advent of homo sapiens, some novelties in the world have been caused by human choices. That's what we call Culture as contrasted with Nature. Therefore, you could say that Cultural Evolution has been "co-determined" by rational agents. But I would not say that all actualities, or all phenomena, or all "actual histories" are determined by the "demi-gods" of the world.

I don't view that co-creator scenario as Theistic, but it is Deistic. It's specifically PanEnDeistic*1. And the causal agency in the world is what I call EnFormAction : causal energy + formal definition + actualization. The "hidden" source of that creative power is unknowable, except by inference from circumstantial evidence. So, any characteristics of the postulated Enformer are knowable only by philosophical speculation and rational deduction*2. Would Spinoza disagree? :smile:


*1. God Models :
Theistic : Direct revelation of divine will to humans.
Deistic : Indirect revelation of divine source via empirical observation of the creation. The Deity is assumed to have created an autonomous world that can run itself without divine intervention.
PanEnDeistic : First Cause is known by reason, not by revelation. Space-Time Reality exists within the scope of Enfernity (Infinity + Eternity). The material world and its inhabitants are participants in divine essence, but are not identical with the divine. We living thinking beings are distinguishable parts of the Whole Being, and not identical to the whole. For more information, Google "Mereology".

*2. Reason :
According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, reason is the power of synthesizing into unity, by means of comprehensive principles, the concepts that are provided by the intellect.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/reason
Note --- The necessary existence of a First Cause is a prime example of "synthesizing into unity" from observation of its knowable parts.

Well, either the state of relative perfection or the state of suffering. Which one do you pick? By nothing I didn't mean permanent death. — MoK

Of course I would pick the 'better' choice. But none of them seems 'desirable'. Also, why do you think that death is impossible?

During the expansion of space-time most emergent Actualities result from natural energy exchanges. But, since the recent advent of homo sapiens, some novelties in the world have been caused by human choices. That's what we call Culture as contrasted with Nature. Therefore, you could say that Cultural Evolution has been "co-determined" by rational agents. But I would not say that all actualities, or all phenomena, or all "actual histories" are determined by the "demi-gods" of the world. — Gnomon

Neither did I want to say that, in fact. Even the 'co-determination' of some actualities is enough. It is something like Tolkien's concept of subcreation, in a sense.

So, the Whole determines all the possibilities/potentialities. Natural processes - either random or deterministic - co-determine most actualities. Then, humans (and maybe other beings) co-determine some actualities with some degree of autonomy. I use the 'co' prefix because, after all, this kind of determination is not from 'nothing' but both from previous actualities and potentialities themselves. Is this now an accurate assessment of your view?

Still my question is: how can we have some degree of autonomy if we are not separate from the Whole?

Would Spinoza disagree? :smile: — Gnomon

Yes, to some extent. And to some extent he would agree. For instance, I think he would ask the previous question, I think.

Still my question is: how can we have some degree of autonomy if we are not separate from the Whole? — boundless

I.e. if we are more like droplets of spray from a wave of the ocean (or rays of sunlight from the sun) than e.g. passengers riding on a moving train...

Even the 'co-determination' of some actualities ... something like Tolkien's concept of subcreation, in a sense.

For Spinoza, no doubt an "inadequate idea" (i.e. imaginary, illusory) sub specie aeternitatis.

it is Deistic ... specifically PanEnDeistic.

Would Spinoza disagree? — Gnomon

Yes, because sub species aeternitatis Spinoza's immanent-monist (unbounded, self-organizing vacuum field-like) metaphysics is acosmist and your "pan-en-deistic" whatever, Gnomon, implies an unparsimonious, transcendent-dualist (Pythagorean / Neoplatonist / Leibnizean / panpsychist monadic-like) metaphysics.

Fwiw, my view is that sub specie durationis (e.g. Husserl's "natural attitude") acosmism seems cogently pandeistic (or consistent with classical atomism). :fire:

Also, why do you think that death is impossible? — boundless

I didn't say that death is impossible.

Still my question is: how can we have some degree of autonomy if we are not separate from the Whole? — boundless

From the perspective of the Whole, the parts may or may not have any freedom, depending on the rigidity of rules that bind the parts. But from the perspective of the parts, our degree of freedom is relative to the other parts. Since I am unable to speak for the Whole, I can only judge based on the current state and history of human actions. As to "how", I must assume that the binding chains of natural Cause & Effect have some "gaps" or "loopholes" that can be exploited by Autonomous Agents. Otherwise, we would all be locked-in rocks.

In his book Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett concluded that some degree of Free Will*1 is compatible with Natural Law. He refers to certain "abilities" of homo sapiens that allow us to make choices that are not dictated by physical laws. Among those abilities are Logic and Language. Regarding the rigidity of natural law, I'll just mention that Thermodynamics is based on statistical averages not specific instances*2, and Quantum physics is also statistical, not mechanical. So some slack (statistical loopholes) in the chain of Cause & Effect seems to be allowed.

In Biology, a cell, which is a part of an organism, can have some degree of autonomy*3, if it creates its own constraints : such as a cell wall. Humans create their own "constraints" in the form of Cultural Laws that do not contradict Natural Laws. :smile:


*1. Free Will :
Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves

*2a. Limitation of statistics are :
Statistics is not concerned with individual observation.
Statistics do not analyse qualitative phenomenon.
Statistical generalisation are true only on average.
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/what-are-thelimitation-of-statistics/
*2b.The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law of large numbers.
https://www.compadre.org/nexusph/course/The_2nd_Law_of_Thermodynamics_--_A_Probabilistic_Law

*3. Autonomous :
An organism is autonomous because it creates the set of constraints responsible for its own constitutive activities that maintain its existence.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-021-09829-8

PS___ Pay no attention to dogmatic Spinozist . He doesn't make philosophical arguments, just haughty assertions and Trump-like political attacks. :joke:

I.e. if we are more like droplets of spray from a wave of the ocean (or rays of sunlight from the sun) than e.g. passengers riding on a moving train... — 180 Proof

Good analogies. But this 'separateness' leads to deism or theism IMO.

For Spinoza, no doubt an "inadequate idea" (i.e. imaginary, illusory) sub specie aeternitatis. — 180 Proof

Agreed!

Fwiw, my view is that sub specie durationis (e.g. Husserl's "natural attitude") acosmism seems cogently pandeistic (or consistent with classical atomism). :fire: — 180 Proof

Well, Spinoza's Natura Naturata would be cover both the 'vacuum' and the 'atoms', the union of them (also, according to him, the attributes are independent from each other, so emergentism is not compatible with Spinoza).

As to "how", I must assume that the binding chains of natural Cause & Effect have some "gaps" or "loopholes" that can be exploited by Autonomous Agents — Gnomon

Ok. But how these 'gaps' arise in a pantheistic/panentheistic/pandeistic/panendeistic system?

In his book Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett concluded that some degree of Free Will*1 is compatible with Natural Law. He refers to certain "abilities" of homo sapiens that allow us to make choices that are not dictated by physical laws. Among those abilities are Logic and Language. Regarding the rigidity of natural law, I'll just mention that Thermodynamics is based on statistical averages not specific instances*2, and Quantum physics is also statistical, not mechanical. So some slack (statistical loopholes) in the chain of Cause & Effect seems to be allowed. — Gnomon

The problem I have with 'compatibilism' is that it redefines 'free will' and 'free agency' in a way to render them meaningless. For instance, if a compatibilist argues that my choices are 'free' because they do not have 'external' causes but they are still deterministic, I fail to see how this can be true 'freedom': actions and choices would be still inevitable. Even if one includes the (apparently) probabilistic nature of QM into play, nothing really changes IMO. Our choices would be determined by a combination of deterministic and probabilistic processes. Something more is needed.

Well, Spinoza's Natura Naturata would be cover both the 'vacuum' and the 'atoms', the union of them (also, according to him, the attributes are independent from each other, so emergentism is not compatible with Spinoza). — boundless

Of course this is so ... sub specie aeternitatis.

For instance, if a compatibilist argues that my choices are 'free' because they do not have 'external' causes but they are still deterministic, I fail to see how this can be true 'freedom ...

If not conditionally "deterministic" (i.e. constrained by your (my) nonlinear dynamic, ecology-nested, embodied cognition), then what makes any "choices" yours (mine)?

As to "how", I must assume that the binding chains of natural Cause & Effect have some "gaps" or "loopholes" that can be exploited by Autonomous Agents — Gnomon
Ok. But how these 'gaps' arise in a pantheistic/panentheistic/pandeistic/panendeistic system? — boundless

Ha! You'll have to ask the Deus why He/r system of Cause & Effect is not strictly dictatorial & deterministic, but statistical, and frivolously creating novel arrangements of matter & energy as a basement hobby. Apparently you think the Deity is incapable of internal change, or oblivious to the little independent-minded creatures running around inside the Whole. Either our evolving world is accidental or intentional, or Deus is just having a bad dream.

All I can do is guess : that the evolutionary system was intentionally designed to produce living & thinking creatures, with abilities that allow for some self-determination. Or, that our universe is a divine experiment gone disastrously awry. Why would an eternal/infinite/omnipotent Being have unruly pockets of space-time scrambling around in He/r bosom? Why would an absolute Entity allow little bubbles of evolving matter to grow inside He/r womb? How could Omniscience/Omnipotence have statistical "gaps", unless they were designed to provide opportunities for creativity?

During my fleeting time here in sub specie aeternitatis, I could try to speculate about timelessness and thinglessness. But I can't imagine such non-sense, except by means of analogies & metaphors drawn from personal experience, and the imaginings of other matter-bound speculators. Perhaps, , as an authority on Spinozism, can provide a definitive answer to your question.

Speaking of speculation, Einstein's Relativity gives us one way to construct analogies of the Whole vs Part perspectives. My sensation of autonomous & independent action in space-time might appear to be static & dependent to Enfernal (infinite/eternal) Being. :nerd:

All I can do is guess — Gnomon

Yes, of course, you can't even bother to rationally speculate or honstly admit you have no effing idea what you/we are talking about. wtf :sweat:

Of course this is so ... sub specie aeternitatis. — 180 Proof

I am not sure if you say this is true according to Spinoza. IMO Spinoza was a parallelist, he would never say that 'mind' emerges from 'matter' (extension) even sub specie durationis.
Of course, this is not necessarily means that he is 'right'. Can you give some reference/arguments to argue that he was an emergentis?

Also, I would say that the holistic character present in Spinoza was absent in Democritus, Epiricurs, Lucretius et al. This doesn't mean that one can build a 'Democrito-Epicurean Spinozism' of sorts but I believe that the ontological primacy of the 'whole' was completely foreign to the classical atomists.

IMO a better example would be actually Friedrich Nietzsche who at least in his private notes seems to endorse the possibility of a 'pantheism/pandeism':

That the world is divine play [göttliches Spiel] beyond good and evil―for this, my predecessors are the philosophy of Vedanta and Heraclitus.

(It was a note the wrote in 1884. In his unpublished and unfinished book 'Philosophy in the tragic age of Greeks', written in 1873, he wrote his interpretation of Heraclitus.
Edit: I borrowed the quote about the 'divine play' from this thesis that I randomly found online, at page 34 of the pdf. I didn't read the thesis and I actually found the quote in another source online that I wanted to share but I didn't found it...)

If not conditionally "deterministic" (i.e. constrained by your (my) nonlinear dynamic, ecology-nested, embodied cognition), then what makes any "choices" yours (mine)? — 180 Proof

In a sense, yes. But if 'compatibilism' is strictly deterministic then it is incompatible with any meaningful notion of free will or free agency. A free agent necessarily has some degree of control on his or her choices and such choices aren't predictable by either a deterministic or probabilistic model.
For instance, a 'Laplace demon', if determinism were true, could be, in principle, able to predict all of my choices. Since compatibilists often remark that determinism and free will are consistent, they must redefine one or the other in some ways. Problem is that this 'redefinition' renders one of them ininitelligible. If the 'Laplace demon' could predict all my choices in advance, how can I say that I am a free agent in a meaningful sense?

On the other hand, yes, choices must be in part deterministic (after all, if a free agent makes the choice A instead of B, his or her actions deterministically follow, unless there are other causes that prevent those actions).

Ha! You'll have to ask the Deus why He/r system of Cause & Effect is not strictly dictatorial & deterministic, but statistical, and frivolously creating novel arrangements of matter & energy as a basement hobby. Apparently you think the Deity is incapable of internal change, or oblivious to the little independent-minded creatures running around inside the Whole. Either our evolving world is accidental or intentional, or Deus is just having a bad dream. — Gnomon

Well, I wasn't talking about my ideas on the matter. But anyway, the 'standard' philosophical position about God (even for the classical theists) is that God is simple, unchanging and transcends time. Spinoza accepted this kind of view. If you say that 'Deus' changes, then yeah I think that my objections do not apply strictly speaking. Still, by 'statistical' you don't mean 'probabilistic'. Probabilism is just as incompatible as determinism to free will/agency (choices are not random).

All I can do is guess : that the evolutionary system was intentionally designed to produce living & thinking creatures, with abilities that allow for some self-determination. Or, that our universe is a divine experiment gone disastrously awry. Why would an eternal/infinite/omnipotent Being have unruly pockets of space-time scrambling around in He/r bosom? Why would an absolute Entity allow little bubbles of evolving matter to grow inside He/r womb? How could Omniscience/Omnipotence have statistical "gaps", unless they were designed to provide opportunities for creativity? — Gnomon

The problem is IMO that the 'Whole/Deity' is or contains, according to you, the whole universe 'sub specie aeternitatis' - where past, present and future are fixed - and yet you also claim that change is real. IMO you have to let go one assumption or the other.

Either the 'Deity' evolves, changes in some way and therefore it's not 'outside time' or change is ultimately illusory.

Well, I wasn't talking about my ideas on the matter. But anyway, the 'standard' philosophical position about God (even for the classical theists) is that God is simple, unchanging and transcends time. Spinoza accepted this kind of view. If you say that 'Deus' changes, then yeah I think that my objections do not apply strictly speaking. Still, by 'statistical' you don't mean 'probabilistic'. Probabilism is just as incompatible as determinism to free will/agency (choices are not random). — boundless

The definition of God as "simple & unchanging" may or may not be true ; but it's irrelevant to you & me. I have no way of verifying that "standard position". But, in the evolving space-time world, where you and I are operating, Complexity and Change are the context from which we vainly try to imagine a First Cause capable of producing an evolving world. Presumably, enfernal G*D does not evolve, but He/r space-time creation may be a machine for evolving little gods.

I disagree about the relevance of Probability to Free Will*1. Calvinistic Classical Physics assumed that the fate of the world is pre-determined by the absolute Will of God. But Quantum Physics has undermined the philosophical certainty of that presumption. According to 21st century science, the physical foundation of reality is Relative, not absolute, and Uncertain, not pre-destined, and Organic, not Mechanistic. The Probability "gap" in quantum physics is anywhere a mind makes a measurement. No minds : no gaps in Determinism.

So, either G*D screwed-up and left some accidental statistical gaps in the mechanism of Fatalism. Or Sh/e programmed our little bubble of space-time with teleological options that allow some brainy organisms to choose from the Possibility menu as it suits their own purposes. The link below points out that Determinism is a debatable guess about ultimate reality, while indeterminate statistical Probability is as close to certain knowledge as human science can get*2. :smile:



*1. Is FreeWill Fake Agency? :
After those scenic side-tracks, he finally gets around to “unpacking free will”. For his analysis, you can read the article. Here, I’ll only mention a couple of points. 1) “Trying to account for choice at the level of neurons . . . wouldn’t provide any causal account”. That would be like looking for Meaning in the circuits of a motherboard. 2) “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”. Finally, he looks at “Freewill as Phenomenal Experience”, and says “Although this naïve view has largely been abandoned by serious thinkers, it can still be useful : what difference does it make if you believe that free will is an illusion? Would you no longer make any choices at all?”. In his considered opinion, “free will is a puzzle but it is not an illusion”. To that, I say “amen”.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page26.html

*2. Probability vs Determinism :
Determinism coexists as easily with probability as it does with ignorance. This is because determinism is an ontological* matter while probability is an epistemological one.
https://www.quora.com/If-determinism-is-accurate-does-probability-exist

Can you give some reference/arguments to argue that he was an emergentis? — boundless

I don't know as an empirical matter whether or not Spinoza is an "emergentist"; metaphysically he's certainly not.

Also, I would say that the holistic character present in Spinoza was absent in Democritus, Ep[ic]ur[us], Lucretius et al. This doesn't mean that one can [can't?] build a 'Democrito-Epicurean Spinozism' of sorts but I believe that the ontological primacy of the 'whole' was completely foreign to the classical atomists.

– and, I think, "foreign" to Spinoza as well (re: infinite =/= "whole"). Anyway, apparently I wasn't clear enough:

I see no other way but to interpret Spinoza as both an immanentist and acosmist sub specie aeternitatis (though sub specie durationis also as a pandeist, which (for me) ontically relates him to that other great immanentist Epicurus). — 180 Proof

[M]y view is that sub specie durationis (e.g. Husserl's "natural attitude") acosmism seems cogently pandeistic (or consistent with classical atomism). — 180 Proof

In other words, sub specie durationis I interpret Spinoza's natura naturans as ontologically deterministic and unbounded (i.e. unmanifest ... vacuum ("void")) and natura naturata as ontically chaotic and bounded (i.e. manifest ... fluctuation-patterns ("swirling recombing atoms")).

For the sake of discussion, boundless, I concede your "holistic" point about Spinozism but only sub soecie aeternitatis.

But if 'compatibilism' is strictly deterministic ...

... which is why I describe compatibilism as conditionally deterministic. Neither strict determinism nor strict indeterminism are compatible with "free will / free action" (i.e. human agency).

The definition of God as "simple & unchanging" may or may not be true ; but it's irrelevant to you & me. I have no way of verifying that "standard position". But, in the evolving space-time world, where you and I are operating, Complexity and Change are the context from which we vainly try to imagine a First Cause capable of producing an evolving world. Presumably, enfernal G*D does not evolve, but He/r space-time creation may be a machine for evolving little gods. — Gnomon

I think that the argument goes like: if God weren't simple, i.e. it God was composed of parts (which themsleves are entities) then it could not be eternal, or at least God would be contingent. God would be ontologically dependent on its parts.

In other words, God's ontological necessity and eternity requires an ontological simplicity.

Anyway, maybe you could say that some aspects of God/Whole evolve and some aspects do not, in order to accept both a panendeistic world view and God's eternity and necessity. But I am not sure if this helps.

I disagree about the relevance of Probability to Free Will*1. Calvinistic Classical Physics assumed that the fate of the world is pre-determined by the absolute Will of God. But Quantum Physics has undermined the philosophical certainty of that presumption. According to 21st century science, the physical foundation of reality is Relative, not absolute, and Uncertain, not pre-destined, and Organic, not Mechanistic. The Probability "gap" in quantum physics is anywhere a mind makes a measurement. No minds : no gaps in Determinism. — Gnomon

But note that, even if we assume that mind is somehow required to make a 'quantum' measurement, the measurement itself is a probabilistic, i.e. random, process. So, while I agree that probabilism is, in a sense, closer to the kind of indeterminism that is required by free agency, it's still not enough. Our choices are neither fully determined nor random.
QM might not be 'mechanicistic' as newtonian mechanics is, but is still not enough.

I don't know as an empirical matter whether or not Spinoza is an "emergentist"; metaphysically he's certainly not. — 180 Proof

OK, I see.

In other words, sub specie durationis I interpret Spinoza's natura naturans as ontologically deterministic and unbounded (i.e. unmanifest ... vacuum ("void")) and natura naturata as ontically chaotic and bounded (i.e. manifest ... fluctuation-patterns ("swirling recombing atoms")). — 180 Proof

Maybe we disagree about 'natura naturata', then. IMO 'natura naturata' is the totality of modes, but this totality is not reducible to the mere collection of them, so to speak. By this I meant that it 'holistic', i.e. the whole is 'more' than its parts and its relations (that is enough for a 'holism', but IMO 'natura naturata' has also an ontological primacy over the 'individual modes').

To give an analogy, I believe that if the 'ocean' is 'natura naturata', a wave is a 'mode'. Regarding 'natura naturans', maybe water itself. But I'm not sure how much the analogy makes sense.

... which is why I describe compatibilism as conditionally deterministic. Neither strict determinism nor strict indeterminism are compatible with "free will / free action" (i.e. human agency). — 180 Proof

:up: Ok, we seem to agree then here!

To give an analogy, I believe that if the 'ocean' is 'natura naturata', a wave is a 'mode'. Regarding 'natura naturans', maybe water itself. But I'm not sure how much the analogy makes sense. — boundless

Other possible analogies:

let's say that there is a house totally made of wood. The house itself is 'natura naturata'. Doors, rooms, walls etc are modes (both finite and infinite modes). The (totality of) wood is natura naturans.

Also, let's say that a statue of a man is made out of a block of marble. The 'man' is 'natura naturata'. Each 'part' of the statue is a mode (for instance the 'nose' or the 'arms'). The marble is 'natura naturans'.

In both cases, there is a sense in which the 'manifest whole' (natura naturata) is 'more' than the sum of the 'parts' (i.e. the modes, both finite and infinite).

What do you think about these analogies?

To give an analogy, I believe that if the 'ocean' is 'natura naturata', a wave is a 'mode'.Regarding 'natura naturans', maybe water itself. But I'm not sure how much the analogy makes sense. — boundless

For me it doesn't make sense ...

What do you think about these analogies? — boundless

Well, imo they don't work. In each case "ocean" "house" "statue" are manifest, finite modes (natura naturata) and yet you claim that the corresponding infinite modes of "water" "wood" "marble", respectively, are not manifest which clearly doesn't fly. Analogously it's the 'laws of nature' – causing and constraining modes such as "water [ocean [waves]]" "wood [house [rooms ...]]" & "marble [statue [male-figure]]" to manifest – which themselves are not manifest and which reason attributes to (i.e. conceptualizes as) natura naturans. All analogies are limited in application, of course, much more so when used to 'illuminate' a metaphysics as subtle as Spinozism.

Lately I prefer "the sun, its rays of light & their heat" (rather than "the ocean & its waves") as an analogy because "the sun" is so remote and not visibly manifest at night even though its effects of "light & heat" are always manifest on Earth (e.g. gravity-well, climate, weather, seasons, photosynthesis); and also, that staring directly at the sun with naked eyes is blinding more or less like fully comprehending 'eternal & infinite substance' with temporal, finite reason is impossible. So for me, in this limited (physical) sense, analogously "the sun" is naturing and Earth, etc are natured ... even though our local star is, according to Spinoza, just another mode (of the attributes of substance (i.e. 'laws of nature')). :fire:

What do you think?

I think that the argument goes like: if God weren't simple, i.e. it God was composed of parts (which themsleves are entities) then it could not be eternal, or at least God would be contingent. God would be ontologically dependent on its parts.
In other words, God's ontological necessity and eternity requires an ontological simplicity.
Anyway, maybe you could say that some aspects of God/Whole evolve and some aspects do not, in order to accept both a panendeistic world view and God's eternity and necessity. But I am not sure if this helps. — boundless

I don't agree with that arbitrary conditional hypothetical if-then scenario. It seems to be placing restrictions on what an omnipotent deity can or cannot do*1. If there are no parts or aspects, then what is G*D*2 the Whole of? That negative definition of Perfection seems to be a bunch of nothing : no boundaries, no parts, no change. no properties, no place for an evolving world with imperfect creatures. Nothing to do : Eternally Boring.

The idealistic concept of a perfect deity --- who is also good, merciful, and loving? --- is a nice neat geometric notion, with no content : an ideal empty sphere that is infinite & unbounded. And it leaves open the question of how such timeless perfection could possibly create a space-time world where good & evil are in constant combat. To maintain their ideal geometric deity definition, the philosophical argument of Theodicy was forced to blame the creatures (victims of evil) instead of the Creator of the Cosmic System. Which is also how monotheistic Judaism was transformed into polytheistic Christianity. Henceforth, theology had to reconcile the existence of dueling dual (or a Trinity) gods, forever fighting over the fate of the creation.

I can't make sense of either argument, A> Monotheism :God is a perfect faultless Whole, and He/r relationship to the imperfect faulty Parts is all top-down. Hence God's perfection is uncontaminated by the limitations of space-time and good/evil. B> Polytheism : God is all good, but He/r evil twin is competing for the crown of world ruler. And spoiling the ideal simplicity of indivisible Oneness. Therefore, I can't accept the notion of G*D as Necessity without Possibilty.

On the other hand, I can only guess that G*D is not frozen into a boundless timeless changeless blocktime popsicle, but is instead a dynamic entity capable of creating an imperfect world internally without compromising He/r own boundlessness or wholeness. Just as a human mind can imagine a Utopian or Dystopian world without reducing its own unity & wholeness, a G*D-mind could move imaginary chess pieces around without compromising its own integrity. As some have expressed the idea : G*D is dreaming our world, so our "real" existence is imaginary or fictional from the perspective of the dreamer. :smile:

*1. How can you define Infinity or limit Eternity? :
Einstein liked inventing phrases such as "God does not play dice," "The Lord is subtle but not malicious." On one occasion Bohr answered, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."
https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae63.htm

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Lately I prefer "the sun, its sunrays & their heat" (rather than "the ocean & its waves") as an analogy because "the sun" is so remote and not visibly manifest at night even though its effects of "light & heat" are always manifest on Earth (e.g. gravity-well, climate, weather, seasons, photosynthesis); and also, that staring directly at the sun with naked eyes is blinding more or less like fully comprehending 'eternal & infinite substance' with temporal, finite reason is impossible. So for me, in this limited (physical) sense, analogously "the sun" is naturing and Earth, etc are natured ... even though our local star is, according to Spinoza, just another mode (of the attributes of substance (i.e. 'laws of nature')). :fire: — 180 Proof

Well, I see your point but maybe it is a 'middle way', so to speak, between the two kinds of analogies.
Natura naturans and Natura Naturata IMO are two aspects of the Substance - an unmanifest and one manifest. The modes are particular features of the manifest aspect, which we erroneously take as independent substances.

I don't know. Maybe a further analogy might be that natura naturans is like a code of a program, natura naturata is the 'manifest' execution of that program and the 'modes' are some 'steps' of the execution, which cannot be thought as separate from the whole execution of the program.

I don't agree with that arbitrary conditional hypothetical if-then scenario. It seems to be placing restrictions on what an omnipotent deity can or cannot do*1. If there are no parts or aspects, then what is G*D*2 the Whole of? That negative definition of Perfection seems to be a bunch of nothing : no boundaries, no parts, no change. no properties, no place for an evolving world with imperfect creatures. Nothing to do : Eternally Boring. — Gnomon

But if G*D is not simple, i.e. if G*D is composite, then it necessarily depends on the parts. If those parts were to 'separate', G*D is no more. BTW, G*D being simple doesn't mean that G*D has no properties, just that G*D has no parts.

On the other hand, it has also been a historical philosophical problem how to explain an evolving world that originate from a timeless and changeless Creator/Source etc.

On the other hand, I can only guess that G*D is not frozen into a boundless timeless changeless blocktime popsicle, but is instead a dynamic entity capable of creating an imperfect world internally without compromising He/r own boundlessness or wholeness. Just as a human mind can imagine a Utopian or Dystopian world without reducing its own unity & wholeness, a G*D-mind could move imaginary chess pieces around without compromising its own integrity. As some have expressed the idea : G*D is dreaming our world, so our "real" existence is imaginary or fictional from the perspective of the dreamer. :smile: — Gnomon

I have some sympathy for this kind of view, BTW. Anyway, if G*D is a 'dynamic entity', then it is easier to explain changes. Maybe G*D has some changeless aspects and some dynamic aspects. Don't know.

But if G*D is not simple, i.e. if G*D is composite, then it necessarily depends on the parts. If those parts were to 'separate', G*D is no more. BTW, G*D being simple doesn't mean that G*D has no properties, just that G*D has no parts. — boundless

Yes. To portray G*D as a "composite", of which we humans are the parts, seems to be a materialistic/physicalist notion. It views G*D as a mechanism with interdependent interacting parts. A machine (e.g. a watch) is indeed dependent on its constituent parts. Take away one cog and the machine no longer functions properly.

But my hypothetical god-model is more meta-physical, and imagines G*D as Enfernal (infinite/eternal) Potential, and our space-time world as one of infinitely many possible Actualized systems. Potential is not a thing that can be divided into smaller things. Instead, Potential is more like a Whole which is more than the sum of its parts. The "more than" is not more Parts, but more Potential. Just as physical Energy is not a material object, meta-physical Potential is infinite and inexhaustible.

So, G*D/Potential is simple in the sense of not being composed of many inter-dependent mechanical elements. A quantum physics metaphor is the hypothetical Universal Energy Field*1 (or Vacuum Energy*2, or Dark Energy). It's a mathematical continuum, not a material mechanism. Since the field of empty space is boundless, and its "grid points" are only mathematically defined --- no extension in space or time --- the Field is not diminished or increased by the popup particles that we interpret as electrons, etc. :smile:

PS___ Since our language is Materialistic, that Holistic notion may be hard to wrap your mind around, but It was presented back in 1926 by Biologist Jan Smuts in his Holism and Evolution.



*1. The Universal Field Theory :
The U F T is not a physics theory in a classical sense. It is rather a philosophical theory explaining Why and How physical phenomena appear.
https://theuniversalfieldtheory.com/

*2. Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

VACUUM ENERGY IMAGINED AS STORMY SEA OF POTENTIAL ENERGY
Nothing there until Potential is Actualized

The Universal Field Theory :
The U F T is not a physics theory in a classical sense. It is rather a philosophical theory explaining Why and How physical phenomena appear.
https://theuniversalfieldtheory.com/ — Gnomon

:clap: :lol:

The section (in the full article) on how to test this "theory" is nothing but vacuous bs. Like "The Force" in the Star Wars movies, "UFT" is just more pseudo-science (woo-woo) stuffed inside a shit-"philosophy" sandwich. :sparkle: