You can hear it in "idiosyncratic" or "ideolect". Something personal, quirky. — Streetlight

you meant idiolect....

Yanis Varoufakis, belov'd of German bankers, sparked my curiosity by claiming that idiotis, in ancient Greek, was a derogatory term for one who refuses to think in terms of the common good.

On checking, it does mean "one's own".

Here's wisdom: One who looks out for thier own interests at the expense of others is, quite literally, an idiot. — Banno

As I Greek I can tell you that Varoufakis is an anathema to German bankers ,the European bank and the IMF. He was the only minister of economics who during his time didn't accept loans from the troika.
The term ιδιώτης (from where the English word idiots comes from) was used to identify those who abstained from the political events and decisions about their city state.
That was indeed a derogatory term used in Ancient Athens, where a democratic system allowed and demanded the participation of "all" citizens. The argument was... by not participating in the political life of the city that would allowed speculators to force their will on a weakened system.

nothing he says has to do with your "agencies" though. He is addressing physical mechanisms.

Agency in Physics
Carlo Rovelli — jgill

lol....that is not what Hillary means by the term agency....

Don't worry! But yes, I guess you have to deal with... But you could also just accept the gods as a given... — Hillary

-That would be gullibility....

On the contrary! Im far ahead of my time. Already at 35! The world isnt ready yet. But my writings will soon be read in the whole world, Nobel prizes for physics and literature and maybe for peace will come my way. You gotta have a goal in life! — Hillary

-Well no. Your way of thinking is typical of the period before enlightenment when our superstitious beliefs projected agency in everything.
lol I can assure you...no prizes will come with that train of thought and level of standards...

Don't feel sad Nickolas! Life is wonderful! Litterally! — Hillary

life might be wonderful....having to deal with superstitions in 2022 isn't that great.

Any help will be deeply appreciated. — Agent Smith

-here is some help....god is not a philosophical topic, like magic is not a philosophical topic.
You might find logical contradictions...but magic can be adjusted since it doesn't have to follow any rules of our reality.
Unfortunately if you do a quick search on how many discussions include the word god/creator and Science/Scientific you will find that 315 (with yours) mention god and only 181 have science in their title.

you're making me really sad Hillary. You are a young individual with free access to knowledge but you are trapped by your iron age heuristics...

There is agency behind physical phenomena. — Hillary

You need to objectively demonstrate it...not just assumed it.
Agency behind nature was the single reason why our epistemology stagnated for more than 2000 until science with its Naturalistic principles allow our knowledge to advance for more than 400 years.

You keep making claim after claim but you neglect your obligation to provide evidence....

-"Particles possess charge, the agencies that couple to virtual fields by means of which they interact. That agencies evolved into the agencies of life."
-CHarge is not agency...stop promoting equivocation fallacies.

-"No, science offers more than abstract descriptive frameworks. Science offers mental simulations of reality....."
-lol...yes whatever.... Science describes...its doesn't simulates (it run simulations to test models but that has nothing to do with you claimed).

Laws of physics are just regularities. The concept of law is rather odd since we usually think of a law as needing enforcement. — Jackson

Correct. Unfortunately many people get confused with human language. As agents we tend to see agency behind nature....even in our attempt to describe regularities in physical phenomena.
This is known as Magical Language and Thinking. Aeon has a great essay on this phenomenon.

They are symbolic representations of things humans don't essentially understand. — whollyrolling

Science offers descriptive frameworks. This means that science observes and describes the emerging empirical regularities in interactions between different physical entities and processes. Those rules are emergent by really simple basic properties of matter.
Your claim sounds like a fallacy from Personal Incredulity.(look it up).

It is apparent that it is not possible to set out what it is to be a religion, any more than for what it is to be a game. — Banno

Maybe what you really meant was that isn't Easy to set out what qualifies as a religion...because we already have definitions that are commonly accepted!

As with all our attempts to categorize phenomena under common characteristics we can always found some standing at the foot of every Bell Curve not really checking most of the boxes.

As I said, we already have definitions for religions and you should start by providing them and pointing out your issues with them.
Then you should point out the phenomena or concepts that you also have a trouble including them in the agreed category.
The same is true for the concept of game.

-Well its a teleological fallacy to assume "reasons" in Natural Processes.
Teleology needs to be verified not assumed.
i.e. We can establish the teleology of a brand new car in our society, but can you assume that the teleology of any car that gets old and breaks down is to end up as a giant "flower pot" outside a Mall?
You need to understand that somethings just "ARE" there in nature and as pattern seeking agents we project our meaning and priorities on them...either we deal with old cars, universes, biological processes.
Sure religions do pretend to know the reasons behind our existence and goals...but again that is a subjective take not an intrinsic feature of natural processes.

What else can we conclude? If I know the fundamental workings of the universe, how can you explain then where the fundamental came from, or why? — Hillary

First of all we need to ask ourselves. "Do we really know the fundamental workings of the universe".
The answer should sound like...."it appears so". At least the working we have recognize appear to play a Necessary and Sufficient role in our explanations of how the Universe get to be the way it is.

IS it enough to know the workings of our universe? No because the underlying cosmic field we detect (Quantum Fluctuations) show us that the story doesn't end with the understanding of our universe alone.
Now by trying to produce observations on a cosmic level, like we did with the Nobel Awarded observations of the Cosmic Quantum Fluctuations) we can produce models that could explain better the nature of the fundamental workings of our universe.

That said our current answer should be "we don't know"..and we don't know if we ever will.

I should point out that asking "Why" questions about the workings of Nature is a useless and fallacious endeavor. "Why" (assuming intention purpose and planning) is a "good" way to pollute the question you are asking (poisoning the well fallacy). Teleology needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
So I will keep your "How" question and linked it to my answer "we don't know" plus I will need to know which aspect of this "fundamentality" you are referring to?

What else than gods can be concluded after the gaps are closed (if you wanna use God as a god of the gaps, which isn't necessarily the case)? — Hillary

-After the gaps are closed? I don't get your question. If you close the gaps with a demonstrable answer then by definition we all have to conclude to that answer? Did I misread your question?

-"

If my model offers an observable and adequate prediction the model is justified. — Hillary

-That would be great but not always. i.e. Ptolemaic epicycles did provide "adequate" predictions for that period. But I will agree with you Description, Prediction and Application should be fruits of all models.

-"The model can't go deeper than the only thing to conclude is that divine powers have transformed the model in a real tangible universe"
-Ok that statement doesn't point how the model of a "divine power" can produce adequate predictions, but it does point to an argument from ignorance fallacy (because our model can't go deeper...thus magic).
And here is the second problem with models of" magic". Magic can "explain" anything since there are no limits in what magic can do. A bigger problem with magical explanation sis that they can not really make meaningful testable, accurate predictions.
You can say "everything is compatible with my model" and you would be right, because your model was designed to be compatible with anything. This is where Demarcation and the risk of the limits of an explanation has comes in and provides value in a model.

This can never be said for divine explanations.

And how can you objectively demonstrate the truth value of your claim.
You say that you have a solution about the mystery of the universe and life. How can you demonstrate its indeed a solution(not just a claim) and how can you verify the supernatural nature of it.
How can you prove to us that all 4.300 conflicting religions and 160+ spiritual worldviews don't have the "right" solution but only yours is the right one.
I guess that claim that's able to provide objective evidence will be the correct one.

How can you reasonably do that? You will need objective facts to justify such an acknowledgement. Do we have any available? Have we ever solved a mystery that was caused by a verified supernatural agent/cause?

Sure. I only pointed out that your experiment and questions can be addressed by the common definition of the term...plus it would put us all in the same page since for every word there are usually more than one common usage.

You think you do (due to a fallacy) but you haven't.
You just ignore the ontology of a phenomenon (either from Personal Incredulity fallacy or a general lack of knowledge) and you just declare it non natural. That is intellectual dishonesty.

You will need to define what qualifies as non natural, define the properties that render a phenomenon non natural and demonstrate them to exist in that specific phenomenon.
Not knowing the ontology of phenomenon makes it unknown ...not supernatural or non natural.

This is basic logic 101

Yes, and it would be a good idea to include the definition challenged by the philosophical inquiry.

In every Philosophical study you first need to define your terms.
I think the definition will provide an answer to your question.

ITs 2022....and we still argue against logical fallacies and supernaturalism. This is really sad.

You need to demonstrate that a phenomenon is non natural (it can not be produced by natural processes) and then point to the mechanism that qualifies as supernatural(i.e agency guiding the process or agency existing non contingent to a physical process).
How are you sure you know all about the natural processes? Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.

-" You very clearly have a preconceived notion of "supernatural", and a bias and prejudice towards this notion. This prejudice disables your capacity to approach the subject logically, with an open mind."

-Dude I gave you a definition on what supernatural means. You tap danced and didn't really answer. You insisted in reusing your from ignorance fallacy.
How can you distinguish a truly non natural phenomenon from a phenomenon you don't fully understand???????
This is why I hold your feet in the fire to provide me the basic characteristics I should look for a non natural phenomenon and you insist in recycling your argument from ignorance fallacy.
This is dishonest sophistry mate...sorry.

So your unwarranted assumptions render your syllogisms non philosophical.

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06b.htm
You assume "creation" and "creators" in your argument.

can an omnipotent god create a burrito so hot that he can not eat it?

My last question was directed to your statement "It seems unlikely to me that...."
Obviously you are experiencing a difficult acknowledging basic historical facts.
I find this question really interesting and revealing.

No 1 is a superstitious non philosophical worldview.
Now the laws of physics are Not "Build in". they emerge from physical systems based on really simple properties displayed by the parts.

I just pointed historical facts. Aristotle's ideas on Logic enabled the scientific revolution and run away success of our epistemology.
Politics and economics are solutions that were conceived 2500+ years ago and still used in the form of Philosophical ideologies.
Why is this difficult for you?

No. That was not my point. I pointed out that Humans have being trying to understand their world and organize their societies from day one. There are good ways and bad ways to do both.
Our current way to produce epistemology(science, skepticism, rational) is the fruit of Enlightenment.
Our current ways to organize our societies are 2500+ years old pseudo philosophical "solutions".

I pointed out that your main question is fallacious. Creation is a act performed by agents not an intrinsic feature of nature. You are poisoning the well and begging a question that isn't designed to address facts.

Believing in the existence of something without being able to identify it as real is irrational

When humans were forced to form large social groups, find ways to organize them and allow their ideas to coexist.
How can we distinguish Knowledge and wisdom from economics and politics? ITs easy. Our philosophy and its frameworks should serve humans...not the other way around.

First of all the term "creation" poisons your question (fallacy). Entities and structures in Nature emerge through processes governed by specific rules all the time.
The facts available to you do NOT justify the use of the concept of a creator as a first cause.
Your philosophy derails at this point.

And they are deontic. Each implies an obligation. Someone might move the bishop along a row, but it would no longer be a Bishop. — Banno

It would still be bishop....badly moved! The piece has a physical form that informs us of our obligations when moving it. But I get Yours and Searl's point.
Great philosopher...Natural Philosopher, especially his work on Consciousness.!

I am afraid you are confusing the intellectual and philosophical movement that fuels our methods of epistemology and wisdom to this day with the catastrophic pseudo philosophical systems of politics and economics. Those are two different things.

-"existence is preferable over nonexistence...."
Only if you enjoy living and the conditions of your life are satisfactory.
You do understand that such question casn only have a subjective answer based on the situation. I can not really see how this question can produce a philosophical model that can be wise or helpful for everyone.