shit-"philosophy — 180 Proof

Haven't you espoused Spinoza's philosophy in the past? Just saying

Yes, and Spinozism is not a "shit-philosophy", so what's your point?

You seemed to be objecting to a post because of materialism but Spinoza wasn't a materialist. He thought you and the world were God's mind. Do you have cotempt for Daoism or is that ok as well?

"There is a thing confusedly formed
Born before heaven and earth
Silent and void
It stands alone and does not change
Goes round and does not weary
It is capable of being the mother of the world
I know not its name
So I style it 'the way'"
Lao Tzu as quoted in Primal Myths by Barbara Sproul

When applying philosophy to physics the lines can become blurred

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not refer to either "materialism" or "daoism" in my last post reply to Gnomon..

Nor Spinozism. My point was that you pick and choose rather randomly what is woowoo and what is not when it comes to the philosophy of physics

Again, non sequitur. There's been no discussion of "the philosophy of physics" here. Go troll someone else, sir.

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. — Gnomon

Well, the ontological dependence is also true for an organism, even if one accepts an holistic model. If a living human being is more than his parts, the human being qua human being still seems dependent on them.

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. — Gnomon

I think that 'holism' per se is not enough to answer this objection.
Also, IMO 'energy' is a property rather than a 'physical substance'. A rock is not 'made by' mass-energy but has mass-energy. Unfortunately, I think that even physicists themselves sometimes indulge in some confusion about this.
We can't say that 'fundamental physical reality' is 'energy' because 'energy' is a property.

IMO rather than 'parts' it would make more sense to speak of 'manifestations' or 'features'. Something like Heraclitus' fragment 67 (source):

God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger; but he takes various shapes, just as fire, when it is mingled with spices, is named according to the savor of each.

Or maybe something like 'God' in Whiteheadan process philosophy (but I am not really familar with that).

IMO 'energy' is a property rather than a 'physical substance'. A rock is not 'made by' mass-energy but has mass-energy. Unfortunately, I think that even physicists themselves sometimes indulge in some confusion about this.
We can't say that 'fundamental physical reality' is 'energy' because 'energy' is a property. — boundless

:100: :fire:

I believe that the confusion is also due to an incorrect interpretation of Einstein's 'mass-energy equivalence', which in fact is due to a misunderstading of 'mass'.
It is somewhat instinctive to regard 'mass' as a measure of 'the quantity of matter'. After all, this is the very first definition one hears in middle school (which is of course appropriate for the age). But even in high school, this definition of mass is replaced by the more sophisticated definitions like 'inertial mass' and 'gravitational mass'.

It's unfortunately simple to misinterpret the concept of 'mass' - and, consequentlly, the concept of 'energy' via the 'mass-energy equivalence' - in a substantialist way. But 'mass' and 'energy' are physical properties/quantities, just like 'momentum', 'angular momentum' or even 'velocity', 'acceleration' etc. Any kind of substantialist interpretation of 'energy' or 'mass' errs due to an incorrect process of instinctive 'reification'. Physical objects are not made of mass, energy just like they are not made of momentum or velocity.

:up:

I think that 'holism' per se is not enough to answer this objection.
Also, IMO 'energy' is a property rather than a 'physical substance'. A rock is not 'made by' mass-energy but has mass-energy. Unfortunately, I think that even physicists themselves sometimes indulge in some confusion about this.
We can't say that 'fundamental physical reality' is 'energy' because 'energy' is a property. — boundless

Yes, Ontology is the most debatable aspect of Philosophy*1. Anything created from scratch is indeed dependent for its existence on the Creator. But I don't see how the self-existing Ontological creator --- what I call eternal/infinite Potential --- could be dependent on the space-time creature. Anyway, we're getting into some esoteric & metaphorical concepts here, that might snidely label as "BS". And, as he might pointedly point-out : "it's way over Gnomon's little pointy head".

In the links below*2, Energy is described as a "property of a system", and Holism is about Systems, not things. So, systemic properties can only be rationally inferred, not physically observed. Hence, we don't know what Energy is, in a material sense, we only know what it does. Likewise, we don't know what G*D is, only what it does : to serve as a hypothetical explanation for the existence of everything in our world. :smile:

*1. Varieties of Ontological Dependence :
A crucial notion in metaphysics is that of one entity depending for its existence upon another entity—not in a merely causal sense, but in a deeper, ontological sense
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dependence-ontological/

*2. Is this correct 'energy is a property of matter?
No, energy is a property of a system, and work is done when the system energy is re-distributrd among the bodies of mass in the system. . . . .
Yes and no. We do not know what energy is. It is invisible. We only find it as a number that emerges from specific calculations.
https://www.quora.com › Is-this-correct-energy-is-a-pro...

SNIDELY WHIPLASH

Likewise, we don't know what G*D is, — Gnomon

On the contrary, g/G is an empty name that

only what it does:

pacifies the superstitious. :pray:

a hypothetical explanation for the existence of [ ... ]

If this "hypothetical explanation" is testable, then cite such a test or what one might be in principle; however, if it is not testable, then there is not any reason to consider g/G an "explanation" for anything at all.

we only know what it does. Likewise, we don't know what G*D is, only what it does : to serve as a hypothetical explanation for the existence of everything in our world. — Gnomon

I hate to bring in Wittgenstein here, but some of his ideas can be useful in these debates. That is to say, you must try to not mix "language games" of the personal god variety and the philosophical god variety.

Generally, in everyday usage, "God" is referred to as a personal deity. In Western tradition, it is of the Abrahamic variety, and has a certain theological baggage that goes with it.

Your use of "God" here is rather derived from the Greek philosophical tradition of a sort of "Ground of Being". There is The Good, there is the Demiurge imperfectly creating from the divine Source, there is the One of Neoplatonism and the manifestations of the One that go from darkness to Light, etc. With Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, you had a proto-notion of "Many worlds". Perhaps with Spinoza, this was advanced even further. With modern theoretical physics, you have it more empirically correlated, as a theory to solve things like quantum superposition in experimental physics.

So in this case, "existence of everything", can indeed open ideas.. For example, the possibility of worlds more "perfect" than ours. These universes, I would contest are NULL set universes. That is to say, there is no need for anything, as it is an absolute perfect state. Its everything and nothing. Imperfect universes, like our own, have individuation, forces, movement, "things happening". Certainly ones with "sentient life" represent a variety of imperfect universe with "wants", "needs", "pain", and "suffering". These are less than average universes.

Anyways, it is important to know this distinction, as it is easy to move from "God is what exists", to "God is that being that directs us and commands, and has a Will for us to follow, in his divine plan". In these debates, people often try to combine them. And I get why, in the Middle Ages, the combination of Neoplatonism and Gnostic notions were combined to create Judaic and Christian forms of mysticism that expanded the Personal deity to "The philosophical deity". And so the category errors and language game confusions continue.

Can it be thus the case that if an infinite set of infinite set of universes exist, then some of these have deities.. that could be said, yes. If that is the case, then we must add in EVERY possible thing that can ever possibly exist, including the Spaghetti Monster. That is to say, in this logic, the Spaghetti Monster exists in one of the many universes. But, is that really where you want to go with the conclusions to your reasoning?

Yes, Ontology is the most debatable aspect of Philosophy*1. Anything created from scratch is indeed dependent for its existence on the Creator. But I don't see how the self-existing Ontological creator --- what I call eternal/infinite Potential --- could be dependent on the space-time creature. — Gnomon

Yup. That's why I think that the view that the 'Creator' is 'simple' is the right one, independently of the particualr idea of the nature of this 'Creator'. If the 'Creator' weren't simple, then its 'parts' would be uncreated themselves.
The problem is IMO that even panendeistic systems at the end of the day must renounce the view that, for instance, 'we' are 'parts' of the 'Creator'. But if one accepts that the 'Creator' is unchanging, then all change is ultimately illusory.

In order to overcome this problem, I think that something like 'process philosophy' is needed if one wants to save both the 'absoluteness' of the 'Creator' and the 'reality' of change. Heraclitus' probably was the first known attempt in this direction.

n the links below*2, Energy is described as a "property of a system", and Holism is about Systems, not things. So, systemic properties can only be rationally inferred, not physically observed — Gnomon

Not sure how this is relevant. Yes, we cannot take 'energy' to be something real if we do not take the 'system' as a 'reality' that bears the property of 'energy' (the confusion arises when 'energy' or 'mass' is taken as a fundamental substance and physical systems and objects are seen as a sort of 'manifestations' of 'particular configurations' of 'mass' or 'energy'). And yes, 'energy' seems more a 'collective property', so to speak, rather than the property of an individual 'object', when systems of interacting 'objects' are taken into account.
But IMO, the only systems that can be considered as 'distinct realities' in physics would be isolated systems (i.e. systems in which conservation laws apply). But again, can we give a non-fictional example of an 'isolated system'?

But IMO, the only systems that can be considered as 'distinct realities' in physics would be isolated systems (i.e. systems in which conservation laws apply). But again, can we give a non-fictional example of an 'isolated system'? — boundless

@Gnomon, I was a bit obscure here. The 'truly' isolated system seems to be the 'whole universe', after all. So, if anything, I believe that the 'whole physical universe' is more fundamental than its 'constituents'.

I hate to bring in Wittgenstein here, but some of his ideas can be useful in these debates. That is to say, you must try to not mix "language games" of the personal god variety and the philosophical god variety. — schopenhauer1

Thanks, but on an open forum like this it's not easy to avoid crossing invisible linguistic lines. I am not familiar with Wittgenstein "language", but I am well-versed in Judeo-Christian idioms. And I have some knowledge of philosophical terminology dating back to the Greeks. So, my use of the non-traditional spelling "G*D"*1 --- along with a variety of other terms, such as "First Cause" --- is a reference to what became known, derisively, among enlightenment era Catholics, as the "god of the philosophers", (an oblique reference to Spinoza). What I'm referring to is the perennial conundrum*2 for abstract thinkers since the first language emerged among men.

That still unsolved mystery dates back to the clear-sky Mesopotamian Astronomers --- perhaps the first mathematical scientists --- who wondered why most stars wandered aimlessly across the "firmament", but others moved in neat cycles that appealed to the order-seeking human eye. Since such circles are not found in Nature, apart from human constructions, they attributed the controlling influence to humanoid gods, and developed a geometric language for discussing the mystery. But the inherent problem of epi-cycles confounded even the mathematically talented Greeks, until one man on a cloudy-sky island, intuited a mathematical controller that he called "gravity" (heaviness), which is a Quality, not a material object, or deity.

A couple of centuries later, another singular thinker introduced a new, counterintuitive, way to think about Gravity, as the influence of "warped space". Which is just another spooky way of talking about the "remarkable effectiveness" of immaterial Mathematics in the material world. So, what ancient Astrologers attributed to humanoid gods, we now just take for granted as the organizing power of Nature, imagined as a pure abstraction. Yet even Einstein felt the need to use taboo "G" terms to describe something that is immaterial, but effective in organizing the material world into the "endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin saw in Nature, and attributed to an unspecified "creator"*3.

Thus, the language of Science has evolved over the millennia. But keeps coming back to the Central Mystery of philosophy : the cause of all order & beauty in the world. Yet some, who think of themselves as philosophers or scientists, are afraid of certain taboo terms, and still run away from the ghostly invisible Causes of the world. And blame their aversion on the historical tendency of the common people to think in Materialistic & Humanoid language, instead of the Mathematical & Holistic abstractions of philosophy. They think they can define the problem away, by calling it "Religious BS". :nerd:



*1. 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 as the organizing mind of 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 & Causation is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*2. What is the perennial problem of philosophy?
The problems connected with the meaning of life, a providential order, political ideals, control over how we live, and the justification or criticism of legal and moral practices are perennial and philosophical.
https://archive.philosophersmag.com/perennial-philosophical-problems/

*3. Darwin's Creator :
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/darwin-quotes/grandeur-view-life.html

Ok, it looks like you are indeed discussing the "God of the philosophers" rather than the theological/Abrahamic variety and the baggage therewith.

So that being said, I can only add at the moment regarding this philosophical deity, is that if I was purely speculating, I can propose that this universe is indeed one of an infinite variety, each with a tiny variation of a variation of a variation perhaps, which indeed, would be infinite beyond anyone's wildest notion and unfathomable for human comprehension. I don't know what that means for determinism, for the block universe, versus partial block, etc.

Certainly, there are "laws" that we have harnessed and used for tools in our pursuit of survival and entertainment. All the mathematical formulations which you alluded to mean there is something for which this universe is "about", and not just constructed, and thus a "realness" to it. Surely, a Schopenhauer would balk at this, and for good reason, being the Kantian he was. That is to say, the universe sans mind is an interesting prospect to ponder. What is that? Pure potential? Pure information? What does that even mean? Of course, people like Berkeley and Descartes thought it was all derived from God's mind, Logos, as you might put it, so there is a "pat" solution, it seems, but doesn't seem satisfying either.

"endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin saw in Nature, and attributed to an unspecified "creator"*3. — Gnomon

You seem to be promoting misinformation, given the title of the book being On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

At least the link you provided corrects the record:

In March, 1863, Darwin wrote about this inclusion of the three significant words ~ by the Creator ~ to his friend and scientific confidante Joseph Hooker:-

"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter."

Indeed, I think in any of these conversations, we have to think of a god that is not "having a hand in creation" so much as "the ground of being" for which the universe exists. Think metaphorically of Vishnu here.. Some modern scientists might argue this is akin to recognizing the Multiverse (if that theory is even correct.. of course there are many scientists that assign this as too speculative, though it does have an answer for quantum physics questions like superpostions). The Multiverse would be all that was is and would be perhaps, and that could be an infinite array of universes. It seems like @Gnomon is going to say that, without the animal/human observer, this Multiverse is simply information. But in my last post, I questioned what that really means. Just like the Multiverse, "Information" seems to be a "catchall" for the "ground of being". @apokrisis for example, will have a grand Peircean version of this consisting of a triadic grouping that must always be in the equation, and explains how existence exists without animal observers (as signs, signifiers, object aka information). Of course, this all begs the question too much if carefully examined, at least to me.

Just like the Multiverse, "Information" seems to be a "catchall" for the "ground of being". apokrisis for example, will have a grand Peircean version of this consisting of a triadic grouping that must always be in the equation... — schopenhauer1

:rofl:

I think "Procrustean" would fit as well as "Peircean" a lot of the time.

I think "Procrustean" would fit as well as "Peircean" a lot of the time. — wonderer1

:smirk:

Yes indeed, @apokrisis' philosophy is indeed a totalizing one, perhaps to a fault. But I do value his attempt to order the world in such a way, even if it is ultimately missing something or wrong. By seeing his logic of synthesis of various fields, it might provide some insights into other things along the way, even if simply thinking of contrary perspectives to its totalizing tendency. One should be charitable first, and then see the breakdown. It looks good from a certain angle for a second, and then vanishes when looked at again. His command of some technical fields does make it more impressive though. I have fought with him on areas which his totalizing view doesn't seem to penetrate, but I still think it interesting, even if he is wrong on issues, and frustrating to debate with in this setting at least.

But I do value his attempt to order the world in such a way, even if it is ultimately missing something or wrong. By seeing his logic of synthesis of various fields, it might provide some insights into other things along the way, even if simply thinking of contrary perspectives to its totalizing tendency. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. :up:

So that being said, I can only add at the moment regarding this philosophical deity, is that if I was purely speculating, I can propose that this universe is indeed one of an infinite variety, each with a tiny variation of a variation of a variation perhaps, which indeed, would be infinite beyond anyone's wildest notion and unfathomable for human comprehension. I don't know what that means for determinism, for the block universe, versus partial block, etc. — schopenhauer1

If you are "purely speculating", the notion of an infinite eternal Multiverse is just as viable as that of an intangible self-existent deity, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, . . . . and just as unfalsifiable. Hence an infinite nonsensical hall-of-mirrror-gods might raise more questions than it answers. But it offers no rational solution to the Perennial Question or the Central Mystery that causes humans to seek for philosophical answers : i.e. wisdom.

I don't know how "pure" Schopenhauer's speculation was, but his notion of Cosmic Will at least has something in common with human aspirations*1. And sounds like Kant's ding an sich, or a God "by any other name". One purpose of Science is to make the world somewhat more predictable, and controllable, than coin-flipping. And an intentional Mind/Will similar to our own would be more comprehensible than infinite God-verses "playing dice" to determine human fate*2. Apparently, Schop was content to be a closet-Pessimist ; I'm not. :smile:


*1.Vindicating Schopenhauer :
Schopenhauer’s metaphysics is characterized by a partition of the world into two categories,
which he called ‘Will’ and ‘Representation’ (I shall capitalize both terms to differentiate their usage in Schopenhauer’s sense from other denotations of the words). Representation is the outer appearance of the world: the way it presents itself to our observation, on the screen of perception. The Will, on the other hand, is the world’s inner essence: what it is in itself, independently of observation.

Schopenhauer’s Will is roughly equivalent to Immanuel Kant’s thing-in-itself, or noumena,
whereas Schopenhauer’s Representations are equivalent to Kant’s phenomena. However, unlike Kant—who thought of the noumena as fundamentally unknowable—Schopenhauer thought that there is a way to know the noumena : when it comes to our own selves, we are not limited to perception—that is, Representation—but have direct, immediate, first-person access to what it is like to be us. As such, there is precisely one case in which we do know the thing-in-itself simply by being it: our own selves. By introspecting, Schopenhauer thought we could make valid inferences about all the noumena.
.
After all,since our own bodies are made of the same atoms and force fields that constitute the world at large, by pinning down what it is like to be us we can infer what it is like to be the world at large as well. And when he introspected into his own self, Schopenhauer found something he thought appropriate to call ‘Will.’
____https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/03/12/vindicating-schopenhauer-undoing-misunderstandings-of-his-metaphysics/

*2. Schopenhauer On The Idea Of Fate :
In Schopenhauer’s essay Transcendent speculation on the apparent deliberateness in the fate of the individual (I KNOW, that’s a title and a half), he explores the idea that our sense of free will changes as we age. His basic premise is that we are more likely to believe in fate, destiny, providence, or predetermination as we get older because we have seen the different acts of our life come together.
https://rcabbott.medium.com/amor-fati-schopenhauer-on-the-idea-of-fate-dab38711be7f
Note --- "Governments are instituted among men" to avoid being subject to the Will of one man. But governments are intended to give each of us a fair chance at "happiness", not a royal road for anyone in particular.

So we agree: in sum, your "panENdeistic G*d" is an empty name (cipher) for mysterium tremendum (i.e. "Enformer"-of-the-gaps) that does not testably explain anything. :smirk:

We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why".

This is because (A) "why" (i.e. goal, purpose) only pertains to intentional agency – an unwarranted, anthropomorphic assumption – and therefore does not pertain to "Nature" itself (re: teleological / transcendental illusion (i.e. a metacognitive bias aka "pure reason")); and (B) the only answer to the foundational/ultimate "why of Nature" that does not beg the question (i.e. infinitely regress) is There Is No Why of Nature. :fire:

Of course, this all begs the question too much if carefully examined, at least to me. — schopenhauer1

Although, professional philosophers, who get paid for their learned opinions, might be loathe to admit it, most of our amateur "reasoning" on this forum consists of justifications for believing as we are naturally inclined to do. As Lady Gaga sang about homosexuals : "I was born this way". I didn't reason myself into an optimistic worldview with a god-like Enformer to make things "work together for good".

Instead, late in life, I found a Holistic explanation for why the apparent positives & negatives vary depending on your location on the curve, and on your personal attitude. While some feel the weight of Entropy holding them down, I feel the inner Energy pushing me forward. Those who "carefully" examine the news of the day will go to bed depressed. Stoicism is not Pollyanna Optimism, but thick-skinned Pragmatism.

Some thinkers seem to view the world from a me-centric perspective, but I see no reason expect the world to conform to my personal preferences. I suppose I was born this way : able to sleep in a bed of roses, smelling the soft sweet petals, while ignoring the occasional thorn-pricks . On the other side of the philosophical hill, a few pessimists, laboring on the uphill slog of the Normal Curve, justify their one-sided worldview by imagining that there is no upside to this dynamically-balanced good/evil world. So, they justify their dismal worldview by labeling the "goodys" as Idiots, blind to the obvious Truth that is clear to all "right-thinking" people. Does that self-righteous attitude remind you of religious fundamentalists?

Meanwhile, Sisyphus just does his unavoidable task of keeping the ball (Life) moving. Whenever you are looking for evidence, there is always something better or worse on the other side of the hill. Like Sisy, I don't examine life too microscopically ; you might miss a chance to smell the roses along the path. Meanwhile, I'm just biding my time, waiting for rigor mortis to set-in. What was the question again? :smile:


What is the moral of the story Sisyphus?
Sisyphus's eternal labour underscores the importance of embracing the present moment and finding joy in the process, regardless of the outcome. Despite the repetitive and seemingly futile nature of his task, Sisyphus persisted in his efforts, finding purpose and meaning in the act of pushing the boulder up the hill.
https://www.thepilgrims-school.co.uk/the-myth-of-sisyphus

THE NORMAL CURVE OF A WORLD OF POSITIVES & NEGATIVES


THE SNOWBALL EFFECT OF OPTIMISTS

:rofl: Oh Dunning-Kruger ...

...might be loathe to admit it... — Gnomon

Though I appreciate you trying to use a possibly archaic word I recently used on the forum, I have to call a language foul. There are two different words, "loath" and "loathe".

You might say, "might be loath to admit it"
or, "might loathe admitting it"
but "might be loathe to admit it" is right out.

:lol:

So, they justify their dismal worldview by labeling the "goodys" as Idiots, blind to the obvious Truth that is clear to all "right-thinking" people. Does that self-righteous attitude remind you of religious fundamentalists? — Gnomon

It depends. For example, procreation imposes life onto someone else, making it an act of force. In this sense, it can be viewed as a self-righteous attitude, where the belief in one's justification resembles that of religious fundamentalists. The newly born are like the forcibly converted, not (can never be) consulted, in someone else's vision of what life should be. What could be more controlling and fundamentalist and "me-centric" than deciding for others what you deem to be the necessary way of life, that others simply must follow? :smirk:

What could be more controlling and fundamentalist and "me-centric" than deciding for others what you deem to be the necessary way of life, that others simply must follow? :smirk: — schopenhauer1

So at what point does anti-natalism become just another social interest group telling me what I should think?

As an evangelist, do you believe you have “the truth” on your side? Yours is the view I simply must follow, and not some more generally held view in society?