Absolute nothingness is conceivable and it is logically possible, but it is metaphysically impossible in a world in which things exist — Relativist

This is bizarre. If no-things is logically possible, then that's the end of that. Our world wouldn't have been involved and I don't posit (and I don't take others) to posit that it is.

IMO, time initiated FROM the initial state of affairs. So that state of affairs had the potential to do so, and it is the cause of time/change. But it's not at all clear what time IS, so deeper analysis is on shaky grounds. Anyway, that's my position, and I can't make sense of you claim that "no-thing" could have caused anything — Relativist

That's fine, probably closer to my view on Time. As to the comment on my position - that isn't my position. The point is that if ever there was no-thing (noting the problem using "was" here) and then some-thing, that's all we need. There is no claim to causality in that, at all. It's an open question of 'how', or whatever.

So the notion that "no-thing" could be a cause makes no sense to me. But you must mean something else. — Relativist

Not really. I just don't mean anything by that. Which is the required position to talk about no-thingness. There is no way no-thing could cause something. That's actually where the mystery lies in considering this issue. If I have intimated (or even outright said) that there's some causation required, I resile and admit that was wrong (and dumb). It is not my position.

Maybe. I believe there's a better reason to think the past is finite than infinite, but lots of smart people disagree with me. — Relativist

I agree with that (both parts). I just like entertaining shit I don't believe more than most.

@Gnomon I'll have to get to this later - sorry you've fallen out so badly with 180. He and I just don't get along, not a huge deal I don't think.

Maybe. I believe there's a better reason to think the past is finite than infinite, but lots of smart people disagree with me.

I agree with you and really these smart people aren’t all that smart, because the infinite past thing is just a way of putting off the inevitable. We don’t know how something could have come from nothing, or how something endures for infinite time and space. So we are left with nothing to say.

Then you misunderstand. "The world" is the entirety of reality, which would include the supernatural, if it exists.
— Relativist
That statement depends on how you define "reality". Your comments seem to indicate that your "reality" excludes anything beyond the scope or our physical senses. — Gnomon

No. I am referring to everything that exists, including a supernatural (if one exists), or anything else that might exist - including minds, even if they are immaterial things.

the theoretical pre-big-bang First Cause that you would call "supernatural", is in my own speculative worldview, analogous to the Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind that we experience in the Real world. — Gnomon

Your speculation seems a mere hypothetical possibility. Why take it seriously?

If it is true, how does it impact you? Do you use this hypothesis to explain other things?
Suppose cosmologists develop a testable theory that accounts for the conditions at the big bang? Would you abandon your hypothesis, or revise it?

My view: it's possible that mental activity involves something nonphysical. It's clearly not entirely nonphysical because mental capabilities are impacted by trauma and disease. If there is something immaterial, I see no use for the information because it explains nothing else about the world. I'm open to criticism and suggestions

There is no way no-thing could cause something. — AmadeusD

The point is that if ever there was no-thing (noting the problem using "was" here) and then some-thing, that's all we need. There is no claim to causality in that, at all. It's an open question of 'how', or whatever. — AmadeusD

We agree there could be no causal relation, but I further argue that it is incoherent to consider a world (the entirety of reality) to include a "nothingness". IOW: there is no logically possible world that includes both nothingness and an existing thing. The presence of an existing thing entails somethingness. Maybe that's what you mean here:

This is bizarre. If no-things is logically possible, then that's the end of that. Our world wouldn't have been involved and I don't posit (and I don't take others) to posit that it is. — AmadeusD

But I can't make sense of this:

The point is that if ever there was no-thing (noting the problem using "was" here) and then some-thing, that's all we need. There is no claim to causality in that, at all. It's an open question of 'how', or whatever. — AmadeusD

This seems to treat no-thing as a thing, a reification. Conceptually, no-thing is an absence of things. It's not even an empty container, because a container is a thing. If there is some-thing, then nothingness does not obtain.

There is no way no-thing could cause something. That's actually where the mystery lies in considering this issue. — AmadeusD

I don't consider it a mystery, because of the entailments I discussed. Rather, it's easy to lose one's way when discussing the concept of nothingness. Because we have a name for it, it's tempting to treat it as a thing; this error leads to apparrent contradictions.

But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation."
This is just speculation, all we know is that we don’t know and any speculation we do indulge in will be tainted by anthropomorphism. Where the anthropomorphism refers to the the human mind and its contents. Also that the answers we seek may be inconceivable to the human mind, or unintelligible. — Punshhh

This is not speculation, it's inference that there is an ontological foundation to reality. The alternative is an unexplainable infinite series of causes and an infinite series of composition.

It's not much different from the Leibniz cosmological argument - which concludes the ontological foundation is something that exists necessarily. Carroll doesn't accept anything as existing necessarily (although I do).

Of course, metaphysical foundationalism is not necessarily true. But it seems to me that there's more reason to believe this than not.

Regarding intelligibility: I agree the actual ontological foundation may be unintelligible - but that has no bearing on the logic that concludes simply that there IS a foundation. (If we deny logic, this undercuts reason - making it self-defeating.)

the theoretical pre-big-bang First Cause that you would call "supernatural", is in my own speculative worldview, analogous to the Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind that we experience in the Real world. — Gnomon
Your speculation seems a mere hypothetical possibility. Why take it seriously?
If it is true, how does it impact you? — Relativist

Why take a hypothetical possibility (HP) seriously? Hmmm. There is a hypothetical possibility that US & Iran will soon be engaged in a nuclear war, and Armageddon is immanent. Personally, I don't worry about possibilities that I can't control. But some people get paid to take such prospects seriously, and others do it like touching a sore place.

However, your question sounds like it's coming from a pragmatic scientific perspective. In which case HP is nothing to waste time & effort on. Unless you are Elon Musk, who spends billions of bucks in order to make the hypothetical possibility of earthlings living on Mars an actuality. Is that HP practical or a motivating fantasy?

In any case, impractical philosophers have been taking preternatural possibilities seriously for centuries. But why? What is the payoff? Science is about manipulating the real physical world for animal values of : food, safety, sex, etc. But Philosophy is focused on the immaterial values at the top of the possibility pyramid. {image below} Philosophy is primarily directed inwardly toward cultivation of the human mind. Your pet dog may be dreaming of chasing a hypothetical rabbit, but you may have higher aspirations.

How does a holistic worldview --- including Nature & Culture & all Possibilities --- "impact" me, personally? It doesn't promise personal salvation or superpowers, if that's what you mean. Instead, it allows me to metaphorically "become one with the world". Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, said about Curiosity that "all men by nature desire to know". But only a few adventurous men are motivated to go beyond the known world, into the scary unexplored country beyond the bounds (bourn) of the familiar space-time world : "The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns". ___William Shakespeare.

The "impact" of such internal experiences is what some call "Spiritual", because it affects the metaphorical Heart, not the material body. How does posting on a philosophy forum impact you? Apparently some get an ego boost from showing Spiritual or Transcendental people the error of their curious ways. Others engage in philosophical speculation, not for material gain, but for spiritual or intellectual development & fulfillment. :smile:

Suppose cosmologists develop a testable theory that accounts for the conditions at the big bang? Would you abandon your hypothesis, or revise it? — Relativist

Notice @Gnomon did not answer ...

This seems to treat no-thing as a thing, a reification. — Relativist

Yes, I believe this is dealt with by my noting hte problem of using something like 'was' about literally no-things. That is a language problem, but I am very much hoping that can be set aside based on the elucidations you seems to grok fairly well immediately above this. I disown treating 'no-thing' as an object other than an object of conceptual thought. It is a blank thought, though.

If there is some-thing, then nothingness does not obtain. — Relativist

I agree but (noting the problem with a temporal assessment here - language problem again) they would not 'come together' as it were. At the 'time' that there was no-thing, our world did not obtain. That's the mystery - hypothetically - in the theoretical transition from nothing to something. The mere state of some-thing does give us the state of no-thing to consider, and that's roughly where I leave it. Again, I just have fun with these things - similar to de Grass Tyson saying "once you're in a black hole, go wild. We don't know what's going on" about Interstellar's later scenes.

Because we have a name for it, it's tempting to treat it as a thing; this error leads to apparrent contradictions. — Relativist

Yes, i agree, but I do not think this is a fault of the thinker, and more a fault of the facts. 'No-thing' can't be held to be an object other than one of conversation/thought (as above). But in that, also as above, the mystery obtains (to me).

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but my question is a bit different. My question, "why take a hypothetical possibility seriously?" was intended to ascertain how you justify believing it as more than a mere possibility. In particular: do you actually believe this to be the case? If so, there must be some justification for the belief. Even if you don't actually believe it, you do seem to give it a level of credibility sufficiently high that you'd bring it up - so you must see something that makes it stand out from the rest.

Related to this: you seem to be treating the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the origin of the big bang as a jumping off point to your hypothesis about causally efficacious mind. How is this not an argument from ignorance? As mentioned, there are various cosmological hypotheses - these are among the possibilities that you are setting aside in favor of you mind-hypothesis.

Regarding the sentiments you shared in your thoughtful post, I share some semblance of this "feeling at one" with the universe, but in my case, I get it by honing my overall world-view. I've embraced physicalism for 10-15 years, because it's consistent with everything we know, with one possible exception: the nature of mind. The question I'm trying to sort out is: what impact does this alleged immateriality of mind have on my overall world view? It doesn't seem to undermine anything, except for the simple (possible) fact that there exists something immaterial. This is why I'm peppering you with questions - I'm not trying to argue you're wrong, I'm just look for things that I ought to take into account.

This is not speculation, it's inference that there is an ontological foundation to reality. The alternative is an unexplainable infinite series of causes and an infinite series of composition.

I would say that logical inferences about the unknown, or the fundamentally inaccessible are speculative. However it is preferable to the infinite series and composition, which throw up illogical inconsistencies. To this extent, I agree with you. I would add a third category here though. That the reality of the origin of what is, is beyond our capacity to understand. It may even be beyond the reach of logic.

Regarding intelligibility: I agree the actual ontological foundation may be unintelligible - but that has no bearing on the logic that concludes simply that there IS a foundation. (If we deny logic, this undercuts reason - making it self-defeating.)

But we must consider that logic may not be able represent the origin in a meaningful way. Or that we can’t rely on it. This is not to deny logic, but rather to accept it’s limitations. Likewise the limitations of humanity’s abilities to work things out, or to understand things.

There are other things to consider, apart from our limitations, that the reality might be counterintuitive, it may be totally orthogonal to what we know about the world. It might be inside out, or running backwards in time, or spanning time. It might be identical to what we know, or imminent, but that we are blind to it. Also there are transcendent issues, but I won’t go into them here.

Basically what I’m saying is that we really don’t know anything, this is not to say we are unable know it. It might be veiled from us.

we really don’t know anything, this is not to say we are unable know it. It might be veiled from us. — Punshhh

I agree 100%. All we can do is to try and peek back layers of the onion, but sooner or later we'll get to a point beyond which there can be empirical verification, and this would limit our ability to explore even deeper. We may already be there, in some areas.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but my question is a bit different. My question, "why take a hypothetical possibility seriously?" was intended to ascertain how you justify believing it as more than a mere possibility. In particular: do you actually believe this to be the case? If so, there must be some justification for the belief. Even if you don't actually believe it, you do seem to give it a level of credibility sufficiently high that you'd bring it up - so you must see something that makes it stand out from the rest. — Relativist

Thanks for the thoughtful re-question.
Due to the multiple lines of evidence from science & philosophy, I do think Causation did not originate in the Big Bang, but was expressed in the bang. No, I don't actually "believe" in this pre-bang Potential, in the sense of religious Faith. But I do think it's highly Probable. Which is the best we can say about events from 14b years ago.

If you are really interested in the lines of evidence, they are described in my 2010 thesis*1 and subsequent blog*2, when I was just beginning to take Philosophy seriously. The key indicators are found in Quantum physics and Information theory. But more recently I've read two books that attempt to discover how & why we humans emerged from an explosion in emptiness, then evolved to our current position at the top of the food chain. If that line of thought is of no interest, I can leave it at that.

But, if you are not afraid to ask "why?" questions that might philosophically transcend Reality, here's two recent samples of such forays into the unknown. Oxford biologist Tim Coulson wrote The Science of Why We Exist (2024) : a history of the universe from the Big Bang to Consciousness. He covered a lot of "how?" mechanics leading up to Life & Consciousness, but he did not actually address the "why?" (purpose) of the title.

On the other hand, Stockholm University biologist Carl John Callemann, phd, wrote The New Theory of Origins (2022) : Explaining Consciousness, the Big Bang, fine-tuning, dark matter, the evolution of Life and human history. In addition to the mechanical material stuff, he did directly address the philosophical "why?" of the origin of Life & Consciousness, by peering into the darkness beyond the BB. The ultimate Purpose remains murky, but it was a good try.

The Coulson book would be amenable to 180proof, in that it remained within the methodology of modern science, and within the bounds of material reality. But the Calleman book was more broadly philosophical, and took some liberties with orthodox science, and ancient myths --- what 180poo-poo would call "woo-woo". But, IMHO, Calleman's unorthodox method came much closer to answering the "why?" questions. Any questions? :smile:


*1. Enformationism : It's not something to believe, but something to think
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*2. The Enformation Hypothesis
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Related to this: you seem to be treating the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the origin of the big bang as a jumping off point to your hypothesis about causally efficacious mind. How is this not an argument from ignorance? As mentioned, there are various cosmological hypotheses - these are among the possibilities that you are setting aside in favor of you mind-hypothesis. — Relativist

If I might step in here. Recall the OP:

When God is described as the Ground of Being, this typically means that God is the fundamental reality or underlying source from which all things emerge. God is not seen as a being within the universe, but rather as the condition for existence itself. — Tom Storm

The anthropic principle can be relevant here—not to assert design in a simplistic sense, but to draw attention to the profound structural coherence underlying the cosmos. As Martin Rees pointed out in Just Six Numbers, a handful of fundamental physical constants—each of which cannot be varied without unravelling the entire fabric—determine the very possibility of matter, stars, chemistry, and life. These aren’t merely coincidental either; they function as master constraints that shape the entire cosmic order.

The question is not only why these values are what they are, but why any such finely balanced set of parameters is possible at all. This invites reflection on whether such constraints point to mathematical necessity, or even to truths that are in some sense a priori—true not because of empirical verification, but because they are necessary for any form of complex, knowable reality.

From this perspective, the universe’s intelligibility is not a happy accident, but might be grounded in something like what classical metaphysics calls the Logos—the rational structure underlying being. This isn’t “God of the gaps” reasoning, but an invitation to consider whether reason itself has a ground—and whether that ground might be ontologically prior to the contingent facts of the physical universe.

This isn’t a falsifiable hypothesis in the Popperian sense, but that’s not a flaw—it’s simply because we are operating in the domain of metaphysics, not empirical science. The claim here isn’t that science is wrong, but that it may presuppose metaphysical conditions (like intelligibility, order, and lawlike regularity) that it cannot itself explain (nor needs to!) Metaphysics begins where empirical method reaches its limits.

Whether or not one believes, I think it's at least worth recognizing that this line of thought is logically valid and not reducible to mere “God of the gaps” reasoning. Recognising, too, that in philosophical terms, the Christian mythos revolves around the idea that the soul or essential being has a familial relationship with the intelligence that animates the Cosmos, and that, therefore, the very ability to discern these truths is owed to that heritage.

The question I'm trying to sort out is: what impact does this alleged immateriality of mind have on my overall world view? It doesn't seem to undermine anything, except for the simple (possible) fact that there exists something immaterial. — Relativist

If there's a possibility that oneself is something other than physical, then there is also a possibility that it is not subject to the same fate as everything physical - which is change and decay. When you die, the physical body returns to the elements by either internment or cremation. Is there anything else to it?

I believe there is, but I don't want to believe it on purely dogmatic grounds, either. My intuition is based on several grounds. One is my intuitive sense of having lived prior to this birth, which of course I realise doesn't constitute any kind of evidence. (However, the cases of children with past-life memories does, per this case study.)

Beyond that, what I’m left with are fear and hope. The hope is that we are more than our bodies. The fear is that, if we are, that doesn’t necessarily guarantee a comforting outcome. The eschatological traditions warn us that post-mortem destiny might be varied and not always (n fact, mostly not) pleasant.

What I’m increasingly convinced of, though, is that secular philosophy—at least in its mainstream forms—has tended to dismiss these possibilities not because it has disproven them, but largely due to inherited cultural and methodological commitments. It’s not that metaphysical naturalism has decisively answered the question of the soul; rather, it often refuses to ask it, or declares it un-askable.

As we've discussed many times, I believe there are unassailable philosophical arguments against materialism, grounded in the fact that ideas are real but immaterial, and that, therefore, our ability to grasp ideas indicates something fundamental about the nature of the psyche - an argument which is as old as philosophy itself, and one which I believe still holds good.

It’s not that the material world is unreal—it’s that it cannot be the whole story. The reality of meaning, truth, and value all point beyond what materialism can contain, no matter how sophisticated its models.

transcend Reality — Gnomon

Such as the 'not real' (e.g. ideals, fictions, impossible worlds ...)

It’s not that the material world is unreal—it’s that it cannot be the whole story. — Wayfarer

Who has ever claimed that it is? Cite a single non-idealist philosopher who says 'the material world is the whole story'.

Besides, IME it tells us inhabitants of the material world more of "the whole story" than tales about any 'immaterial world'. :sparkle: :eyes:

But, IMHO, Calleman's unorthodox method came much closer to answering the "why?" questions. Any questions? :smile:

Questions of why and purpose are inaccessible to us because they involve the purposes of who, or what brought the world into being. It might only be possible to understand, or map those purposes from the perspective of that agency (this also applies if the agency is unconscious). We are mere specs of dust in comparison.

All we can do is to try and peek back layers of the onion, but sooner or later we'll get to a point beyond which there can be empirical verification, and this would limit our ability to explore even deeper. We may already be there, in some areas.

Mysticism got there a while back. They realised that mental enquiry alone is blind, there are natural veils in our and the world’s make up, which prevent progress in that direction. That if progress is to be made it requires other avenues of inquiry, to bypass, or see around those veils.

There are three avenues I have found, intuition, nature and way of life. Of course mind is present, but not in control.

Cite a single historical philosopher who says 'the material world is the whole story'. — 180 Proof

• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) – Argued that all phenomena, including thought, are explicable in terms of matter in motion. Leviathan opens with: “The universe is corporeal; all that is real is body.”
• Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709–1751) – In L’Homme Machine, he argues that humans are essentially sophisticated machines, governed entirely by physical processes.
• Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789) – In The System of Nature, he writes: “Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it... his ideas are the necessary effect of the impressions he receives.” That’s full-blown deterministic materialism.
• Ludwig Büchner (1824–1899) – In Force and Matter, he argues that all spiritual phenomena are explicable through matter and force.
• J. J. C. Smart (1920–2012) – A champion of the mind-brain identity theory: mental states just are brain states.
• David Armstrong (1926–2014) – Argued that mental states are physical states with a certain functional role.
• Paul Churchland & Patricia Churchland – Advocates of eliminative materialism, which holds that beliefs, desires, and intentions as ordinarily understood don’t really exist; they’re just folk-psychological illusions awaiting replacement by neuroscience.
• Daniel Dennett (b. 1942) – A leading proponent of functionalist materialism, famously dismissive of qualia and any notion of non-physical mind. See: Consciousness Explained (1991).
• Alex Rosenberg (b. 1946) – Author of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, where he asserts that physics is all there is, and that even meaning and morality are illusions.

But, IMHO, Calleman's unorthodox method came much closer to answering the "why?" questions. Any questions? :smile:
Questions of why and purpose are inaccessible to us because they involve the purposes of who, or what brought the world into being. It might only be possible to understand, or map those purposes from the perspective of that agency (this also applies if the agency is unconscious). We are mere specs of dust in comparison. — Punshhh

Please note that I didn't say he definitively & finally answered the "why?" question of a purpose to the universe. "Questions of why and purpose" are indeed "inaccessible" to empirical science. But this is a theoretical philosophy forum, where such inquiries into Being & Consciousness should be admissible : yes/no?

In a local personal context : have you ever observed the behavior of a person, and asked "why?". Of course, we cannot objectively know another subjective mind, but we can reasonable infer a motive. If so, you were doing philosophy. And you might be able to confirm your suspicion of purpose by asking the oddly behaving "agency". Obviously, we can't interrogate the Causal Agent of our own existence. But we can introspect our inner awareness, and imagine "what it would be like" to have the power & potential to create a world from scratch.

Apparently, your observation of our Universe gives you the impression of blind random purposeless groping in the dark. But Charles Darwin had a grander "view of life"*1, implying that Natural evolution, like Artificial selection of plants & animals, was motivated by a future goal or purpose. And his theory postulated two principle mechanisms : random Mutation & non-random Selection. You have good company in viewing the world as bleak & meaningless : along with Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard, and Russian Nihilists. Ironically, the first four made concessions to personal meaning.

However, my impression of our Cosmos --- based in part on Modern Cosmology, Quantum Physics, and Information Theory --- is of a complex self-assembling system, that is motivated by a world-creating impulse (BB) of Cause & Laws. From such a simple yet powerful beginning, awesome complexity & beauty have evolved --- despite unfit mutations subject to de-selection. And that observation of gradual improvement implies, to more sanguine thinkers, some kind of long range Purpose, implemented in an ongoing Process, not in a six day Genesis fait accompli. I could post a list of my "company" of secular thinkers who reached a more positive & progressive understanding. But for brevity, I'll only mention the one I'm most familiar with : A.N. Whitehead*2.

Doesn't the gradual evolution of Life & Consciousness from an instantaneous explosion of space-time --- from whatever came before --- make you curious about the Why of your own life & mind in a material world? :smile:


*1. "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."
* Darwin added the phrase "by the Creator" from the 1860 second edition onwards, so that the ultimate sentence begins . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

*2. Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality :
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

Mysticism got there a while back. They realised that mental enquiry alone is blind, there are natural veils in our and the world’s make up, which prevent progress in that direction. That if progress is to be made it requires other avenues of inquiry, to bypass, or see around those veils. — Punshhh

This depends on the unjustified assumption that we actually have the capacity to see around those veils, and it places unwarranted trust in one's intuitions.

However, my impression of our Cosmos --- based in part on Modern Cosmology, Quantum Physics, and Information Theory --- is of a complex self-assembling system, that is motivated by a world-creating impulse (BB) of Cause & Laws. From such a simple yet powerful beginning, awesome complexity & beauty have evolved --- despite unfit mutations subject to de-selection. And that observation of gradual improvement implies, to more sanguine thinkers, some kind of long range Purpose, implemented in an ongoing Process, not in a six day Genesis fait accompli. I could post a list of my "company" of secular thinkers who reached a more positive & progressive understanding. But for brevity, I'll only mention the one I'm most familiar with : A.N. Whitehead*2.

What I have said doesn’t mean I don’t consider cosmogony’s like this. It’s a good philosophy as I said the last time we spoke.

However we are limited to what we can know in our world. This can also be extrapolated to some universal truths. But we can’t know the extent to which this knowledge applies to realities beyond our world. It could be a pale, or partial, representation of the reality beyond. As such we can do no more than speculate on what there is.
I am aware that there are ways, as you say, to work out what nature is up to and the direction it is going in. With the caveat that it may be only a partial picture and we don’t know what is missing from the picture. It could be something which entirely transforms it, or acts as a key to unlock realities hidden from us.

If there's a
possibility that oneself is something other than physical, then there is also a possibility that it is not subject to the same fate as everything physical - which is change and decay. — Wayfarer

I'm conceding there may be some non-physical aspect of mind, because of the explanatory gap that materialism has regarding consciousness. For purposes of this discussion, I'll treat that as a fact. My question continues to be: what does this fact plausibly entail, or at least strongly suggest? It's true that an afterlife entails some sort of immaterial existence, but it's fallaciously affirming the consequent to conclude that the presence of immateriality implies or suggests an afterlife.

The anthropic principle identifies the trivial fact that rational beings would necessarily find themselves in a world that is conducive to their existence. The "structural coherence" in the universe is most simply explained by the existence of laws of nature. The alleged "fine-tuning" is nothing more than an acknowledgement that our existence would have been improbable (a priori).

"Fine tuning arguments" depend on the unstated (egocentric) assumption that life is a design objective, rather than an improbable consequence of the way the world happens to be.

The hope is that we are more than our bodies. The fear is that, if we are, that doesn’t necessarily guarantee a comforting outcome. The eschatological traditions warn us that post-mortem destiny might be varied and not always (n fact, mostly not) pleasant. — Wayfarer

Wishful thinking is a poor guide to truth. It also seems to me this overlooks what we DO know from science: the "mind's" dependency on the physical. Memories are lost due to disease, aging, and trauma. Personality can even be altered from trauma and disease- such that one's preferences, tastes, and even addictions can change. This constitutes stronger evidence of a physical dependency than the indirect inference of immateriality inferred from an explanatory gap around the nature of consciousness. Memories and personality are essential to who we are (IMO). So what, if some immaterial kernal of me lives on, if it lacks my memories, and my passions.

I put zero stock in religious traditions. The promise of an afterlife is emotionally compelling, but it's fundamentally wishful thinking.

Whether or not one believes, I think it's at least worth recognizing that this line of thought is logically valid and not reducible to mere “God of the gaps” reasoning — Wayfarer

It's not "God of the Gaps", per se, but it seems much like conspiracy theory reasoning. These develop through a corrupted "Inference to Best Explanation" (IBE). IBE is a rational basis for justifying beliefs, but only if it's applied correctly: considering all relevant evidence (conspiracy theorists only consider the evidence consistent with their "inference") and entertaining alternatives. The evidence that mind has a strong physical dependency is strong, and this flies in the face of a relevant afterlife. The explanatory gap in a materialist account of mind can be filled with something considerably simpler than intelligent design and heaven.

The question I'm trying to sort out is: what impact does this alleged immateriality of mind have on my overall world view? It doesn't seem to undermine anything, except for the simple (possible) fact that there exists something immaterial. — Relativist

I have used a practical example of Mind Over Matter before : the Panama Canal*1 was a dream of shippers for nearly three centuries before it had any physical "impact" on shipping. Early Spanish maps showed a bird's eye view of how narrow the isthmus is. And the conceptual implications for a shortcut to transport goods & gold --- two days of calm water vs two months around the hazardous Cape Horn --- were obvious, but immaterial, and "deemed impossible".

In practice, it took several failed attempts, and several decades of dreaming, and many human deaths to make that "impossible dream" a Reality. Nature might have eroded the isthmus over millennia, or it might not. But human Culture (and dynamite) did the job, by literally "undermining" Nature, and physically moving mountains. Can you agree that this is an example of the causal power of Mind in the Material world?

Moreover, modern human Culture --- with all its faults & failures --- is an ongoing example of mind-power motivating human potential. In material brains, processing immaterial (functional) minds, collective culture currently dreams of humans flying, like wingless birds with tails on fire, to the Moon and Mars. Are these shiny ships propelled by fire or by fantasy, or both? Do these pragmatic examples of Causal Conceptual Power (practical magic?) have any "impact" on your overall worldview? :smile:


*1. The initial concept for the Panama Canal arose from the desire to create a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, eliminating the long and perilous voyage around South America. This idea, sparked by Vasco Núñez de Balboa's discovery of the Isthmus of Panama, led to early Spanish surveys in the 16th century, but the project was deemed impossible due to the terrain and engineering limitations. Later, the French attempted a sea-level canal in the late 19th century, but faced immense challenges with disease and landslides, ultimately leading to their failure. The American-led effort, which ultimately succeeded, involved a lock-based system to navigate the elevation changes across the isthmus.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=panama+canal+original+concept

This depends on the unjustified assumption that we actually have the capacity to see around those veils, and it places unwarranted trust in one's intuitions.

You seem to have smuggled in the word assumption there.
How can it be deemed unjustified if we don’t know if there are ways to go around, or unlock the veils, or not. Or what, or where the veils are? Surely there is justification to enquire, whilst under the realisation that we have reached the limit of empirical enquiry.

Likewise with your word unwarranted, I haven’t said anything about intuition, other than that it is used in some way. We use our intuition all the time, already, indeed it helps us sometimes when working with logic and likely plays an important role in understanding philosophy, for example.

All I’m describing is a different way of working things out than using reason alone. There is a system of calculating things about the world and the self from the use of intuition, interaction with nature and following an appropriate way of life. Where these three means are used together and in sequence to work things out. To arrive at an understanding without arriving there via rational thought. This and other means have been practiced for millennia from a time before there was much in the way of academic learning.

Do these pragmatic examples of Causal Conceptual Power (practical magic?) have any "impact" on your overall worldview? — Gnomon

No. I acknowledge everything you said about the impact of mind on the world, but it's independent of the (meta)physical nature of mind. The world we interact with (through human action and interaction) is best understood through things like social sciences, and not through quantum field theory. This is true even if reductive physicalism is 100% correct. The possibility of mind having some immaterial aspects also doesn't seem to have any bearing - it's still just a different sort of reduction.

It's true that an afterlife entails some sort of immaterial existence, but it's fallaciously affirming the consequent to conclude that the presence of immateriality implies or suggests an afterlife. — Relativist

‘Afterlife’ is a term with strong religious overtones, and perhaps it muddies the waters. My point is more modest: as you acknowledge, the so-called explanatory gap—the inability of physicalism to account for subjective consciousness—suggests that a purely physical description of the human is incomplete.

Physicalism generally presumes the causal closure of the physical—that all causes and effects occur within the physical domain. But if that assumption is undermined, then other domains of explanation become conceptually possible. That doesn’t prove dualism, or an afterlife, or any religious doctrine—but it opens space for something beyond the materialist frame.

This quote from biologist Richard Lewontin in a book review spells it out.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

So, the materialist commitment is not demanded by science itself, but by a philosophical stance about what counts as an acceptable explanation. The key sentence: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Whether or not one believes in a deity, that phrase betrays the anxiety that if materialism is not all-encompassing, then the coherence of the whole system is threatened.

So we’re not dealing with a dispassionate assessment of evidence, but with a boundary-defining metaphysical commitment.

"Fine tuning arguments" depend on the unstated (egocentric) assumption that life is a design objective, rather than an improbable consequence of the way the world happens to be. — Relativist

The attribution of the anthropic principle to a selection effect ("We find the universe fine-tuned because only in a fine-tuned universe could we find ourselves") is logically valid but explanatorily inert - it says nothing but only reaffirms the taken-for-granted nature of existence.

And, of course, for naturalism, existence is taken for granted. It is granted! Naturalism, I like to say, 'assumes nature'. So any line of questioning which interogates that sentiment is dismissed, whereas, in philosophy, it is an opening to a deeper sense of questioning.

The deeper philosophical issue behind the anthropic principle is not just whether our existence is improbable, but whether the existence of a rationally structured, life-permitting cosmos admits of any explanation at all, or whether we must simply accept it as a brute fact—what some, following Monod, would call “chance.”

In his book Chance and Necessity, Jacques Monod draws the contrast explicitly: chance is what happens in the absence of reason. It is, in effect, the denial that there is anything intelligible to be found behind or beneath the statistical patterns. In this view, the fact that the universe permits life, consciousness, and rational reflection is not something to be explained—but something that simply happened, and could easily not have.

But this is not a neutral position. It's a philosophical commitment—an affirmation of unintelligibility as the last word. And it stands in deep tension with the most basic assumption of both science and philosophy: that the world is in some sense rational, that its patterns are not only observable but meaningful. That’s what Einstein was gesturing at in his famous remark: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

So the real question isn’t just whether life is improbable, but whether the emergence of beings capable of asking such questions is itself part of an intelligible order—or whether, as Monod would have it, we are the products of blind chance and cosmic indifference.

I don’t think that’s a scientific question. I think that’s the philosophical heart of the matter. So, and perhaps ironically, we find ourselves in a position where naturalism must accept that the universe is, at bottom, irrational—that reason is something we impose or invent for pragmatic survival, but that it has no intrinsic connection to the order of things. On this view, reason isn’t a window into the real, but a useful illusion—evolution’s trick to keep the organism alive. And yet, it’s this very reason we’re asked to trust when making that judgment.

You seem to have smuggled in the word assumption there.
How can it be deemed unjustified if we don’t know if there are ways to go around, or unlock the veils, or not. Or what, or where the veils are? Surely there is justification to enquire, whilst under the realisation that we have reached the limit of empirical enquiry. — Punshhh

Rational belief is justified belief- i.e.having reasons to believe some proposition is true. "X is possible" is not a justification to believe X rather than ~X. Possibilities are endless.

Warrant=justification.

I'm fine with using intuition to develop and justify belief, but it IS subjective. I don't have any problem with anyone following their own intuitions. I also follow mine. I also ask myself: why do I believe this? Intuition plays a role, but IMO we should also be self-critical.

I apologize if I sound like I'm criticizing you or anyone else. I'm actually just exercising some self-criticism to understand if there is something that I should be taking into account that I have been overlooking? Hearing different point of views is interesting.

Rational belief is justified belief- i.e.having reasons to believe some proposition is true. "X is possible" is not a justification to believe X rather than ~X. Possibilities are endless.

I don’t work with beliefs, I don’t hold any other than those that are required to live a life. When it comes to questions of existence, I hold none. This also pertains to denying any beliefs, I don’t deny any either. This might sound radical, but it isn’t, it’s realistic. Because as I have already pointed out, we really have no idea, not a clue, what is out there. Gnomon seems to conclude that this is a barren denialism, or something. It isn’t, it’s is to be open minded.

So in a sense I am standing at the door of the unknown along with the Metaphysicians who have reached the extent of what they can deduced using logical inferences.

So what do we do now? How do we make progress?

Perhaps it is a pursuit like the pursuit of an artist, to make progress. An artist exercises intuition and a creative flair to improve their work. It is a journey, with events and experiences along the way. But crucially, the artist is moving forward without relying on rational thought alone. It is in the mix, but not controlling events, or progress. There is an interplay between thought, intuition, happenstance and the creation of artistic content. The artist may refer to pieces made previously, to find inspiration, a feedback loop. Also there may be means a bit like calculus, quadratic equations. Like shimmying up a chimney with one foot being intuition, the other foot, a way of life and the hands interaction with nature.

I apologize if I sound like I'm criticizing you or anyone else

No worries, My skin is like elephant hide.

the inability of physicalism to account for subjective consciousness—suggests that a purely physical description of the human is incomplete. — Wayfarer

Sure, but that doesn't give epistemic license to fill the gap arbitrarily or with wishful thinking.

if that assumption is undermined, then other domains of explanation become conceptually possible. That doesn’t prove dualism, or an afterlife, or any religious doctrine—but it opens space for something beyond the materialist frame. — Wayfarer

Yes, but it's a wide space of possibility. As I previously said, we've only (at best) established a negative fact.

We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Whether or not one believes in a deity, that phrase betrays the anxiety that if materialism is not all-encompassing, then the coherence of the whole system is threatened. — Wayfarer

I can only give my personal reaction. We've only "established" (too strong, but it will do) that there is some immaterial aspect of mind. I see no relevant entailments - propositions that I should accept because of it. Perhaps it would be relevant to a nihilist.

Remember my hurricane analogy? We don't examine and predict their activities based on quantum field theory. Similarly, we shouldn't examine human behavior or aesthetics in terms of reductive physicalism - even if reductive physicalism is true. So if it's false, with respect to "the mind" - it has no bearing on how I view things. It's just a metaphysical technicality.

The attribution of the anthropic principle to a selection effect ("We find the universe fine-tuned because only in a fine-tuned universe could we find ourselves") is logically valid but explanatorily inert - it says nothing but only reaffirms the taken-for-granted nature of existence. — Wayfarer

It's a falsification of invalid reasoning. The question ostensibly answered by this invalid reasoning reflects a contrivance, not a conundrum requiring explanation.

the anxiety that if materialism is not all-encompassing, then the coherence of the whole system is threatened.

So we’re not dealing with a dispassionate assessment of evidence, but with a boundary-defining metaphysical commitment. — Wayfarer

Even religious scientists employ methodological naturalism in their investigations. There is no alternative that bears practical fruit. Consider the work of "creation science" ' which makes virtually no contribution to our understanding of the world. It's mission is to rationalize empirical data to dogma. If you agree that methodological naturalism is the appropriate paradigm for the advance of science, where should the negative fact enter into my metaphysical musings?

How should I revise my personal views on the (meta)nature of mind? Alternatives to physicalism also have explanatory gaps (e.g. the mind-body interaction problem of dualism).

basic assumption of both science and philosophy: that the world is in some sense rational, — Wayfarer

IMO, that's an unwarranted assumption. We can makes sense of the portions of reality we perceive and infer. That is not necessarily the whole of reality. I also argue that quantum mechanics isn't wholly intelligible. Rather, we grasp at it. Consider interpretations: every one of them is possible- what are we to do with that fact? I'm not a proponent of the Many-Worlds interpretation, but it's possibly true- and if so, it has significant metaphysical implications- more specific implications than the negative fact we're discussing.

whether, as Monod would have it, we are the products of blind chance and cosmic indifference. — Wayfarer

There's a fundamental problem with the thesis that our minds should be considered the product of design: it depends on the premise that there exists an uncaused mind that can do designs. That's a considerably more drastic assumption than the gradual, chance development of rational beings over billions of years in a vast universe.

we find ourselves in a position where naturalism must accept that the universe is, at bottom, irrational—that reason is something we impose or invent for pragmatic survival, but that it has no intrinsic connection to the order of things. On this view, reason isn’t a window into the real, but a useful illusion—evolution’s trick to keep the organism alive. And yet, it’s this very reason we’re asked to trust when making that judgment. — Wayfarer

I disagree. "Rational" applies to minds, not to the world at large. We apply our rationality in attempting to understand the world. Intelligibility may be what you're alluding to. There may be uinintelligibility underneath the layers we can understand, but that possibility needn't deter us from striving to understand what we can. We can never know the stuff that's beyond our ability to measure and theorize; we can't even know anything IS beyond these abilities. Here's where I apply parsimony and pragmatism: there's no epistemic basis to assume such things exist, so it's more parsimonious to assume it does not, and the (mere) possibility has no pragmatic significance.

However we are limited to what we can know in our world. This can also be extrapolated to some universal truths. But we can’t know the extent to which this knowledge applies to realities beyond our world. It could be a pale, or partial, representation of the reality beyond. As such we can do no more than speculate on what there is. — Punshhh

Yes. That's what exploring philosophers do : use our limited senses to learn what is within our reach, and then reach-out to "speculate" on what might exist outside our little valley, on the other side of the mountain. In other words : to expand our perspective. Universal Truths are not observations, but interpretations. :smile:

No. I acknowledge everything you said about the impact of mind on the world, but it's independent of the (meta)physical nature of mind. The world we interact with (through human action and interaction) is best understood through things like social sciences, and not through quantum field theory. This is true even if reductive physicalism is 100% correct. The possibility of mind having some immaterial aspects also doesn't seem to have any bearing - it's still just a different sort of reduction. — Relativist

Quantum Field Theory is just one of the mind-expanding technologies that opens doors for novel philosophical & scientific exploration. Of course, an open door could invite dangerous strangers into your worldview. That's why a skeptical screen helps to filter-out the fake & false, while admitting new possibilities.

Some posters on this forum feel safer with the certainty of 17th century physics, and shy away from 20th century quantum physics*1. Both are "frameworks" for conceiving the real world. Newton's world was solid & stable & factual, safely outside the human mind : a closed door. But the Quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable & subject to interpretation. Even spookier is that quantum observations are somewhat dependent on the observer : opening a door of perception*2 into the personal domain of the human mind.

If you define "Mind" as "Brain", you can ignore any uncanny immaterial or metaphysical*4 implications. But, if you define "Mind"*3 as awareness & intellect & experience (feeling), you will be hard-pressed to find any "material aspects" that you can put your finger on. The choice is yours : open door & risk (exploration), or closed door & security (stay at home). :smile:


*1. Newtonian physics and quantum physics are two different frameworks for describing the universe, with Newtonian physics focusing on the motion of macroscopic objects and quantum physics delving into the behavior of matter at the atomic and subatomic level. Newtonian physics is deterministic, meaning that given the initial conditions of a system, its future state can be precisely predicted. Quantum physics, on the other hand, is probabilistic, meaning it can only predict the likelihood of different outcomes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+vs+newtonian+physics

*2. The famous quote, "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite," comes from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. It was later used as the epigraph for Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception, which details his experiences with the drug mescaline.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=doors+of+perception+quote
Note --- The sub-atomic world described by quantum physicists seems more like a psychedelic drug trip than the mundane reality of Newtonian physics. How can we tell what's real, and what's ideal? Remember, all we know about Reality is our images & experiences in the mind. Can we trust our own perceptions?

*3. Define Mind :
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
___Oxford dictionary

*4. Notes on Meta-Physics :
# Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns) ; Forces are Causes (motivators)
# Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).
# Selves are meta-physical agents, in the sense that they are more than a collection of physical parts (integrated whole system). They are not Spiritual, in the sense of ghosts without bodies. At death, a Self dissipates even as the parts remain.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

PS___ I've noticed in several of the posts on this thread, negative assessments of Intuition & Imagination : the very talents that give humans a competitive edge over animals, who are able to see only what is within range of their senses. Eagles can see farther than men ; Dogs can follow scents that are insensible to their masters. But it's the ability to see what's not there, and to predict the future, that make men the masters over less endowed animals.

Of course, Intuition & Imagination & Wishful Thinking can lead us astray. But we do it anyway. Because the intellectual payoff outweighs the risks. And that ability to see over the horizon is what gives Scientists & Philosophers a leg-up on those who (metaphorically) stay safely at home, where food & shelter are guaranteed. And there's no need for discernment, curiosity, or ambition. ;)