The forms are endlessly variable and open ended, and so can not be defined — Pop

Most forms can be expressed in art.

My thoughts are not universal, but the underlying process giving rise to them is - self organization. — Pop

But self organisation cannot stand on it's own. It needs to be immersed in the right habitat. So the habitat is even more universal. However that may be though, it diesn't say anything about art. Maybe expressing this view is a form of art (like you di in your paintings).

We are the same, just different in formation. — Pop

But this doesn't address the different forms. It just says there are different forms. But that's a worldview too. It's universal for you. I believe in forms too. You would say it's no believe. But it is. That's universal. That people have different believes You would call them forms but that doesn't say anything about them, not about their shape, not about their relation to other forms (not their physical or neuronal-physical interaction), nor about their nature (sound, looks, is it face-like), nor their relation to Nature or God.

audience relationship is a relationship of consciousness in relation to consciousness. — Pop

Ýou mean people showing art to other people?

the answer to the most often asked question. — PoeticUniverse

What question?

All logical laws have exceptions (counterexamples) must itself have (an) exception(s). — TheMadFool

I feel Gödel lurking here. The law that all laws have exceptions can't be applied to itself.

I don't know why QFT doesn't get explored all that much on this forum. — PoeticUniverse

I do. It's considered difficukt while in fact there ain't nothing to it. Maybe we should start a lecture! For starters. The math terrifies a lot of people. Challenging their intelligence.

If the universe is eternal there is no cause needed. The existence an Sich can only be explained by a god(s).

But great art, whatever that may be, depends upon a great mind, whatever that may be. — Pop

"Whatever that means". Indeed. What does it mean?

No, most definitions of art are rather shallow and trivial, and similar. I have read many of them. This one is different. This one defines art scientifically within a work of art. Nothing like it has been seen before. — Pop

What's different? It doesn't address a single form if art. So not all forms (n)either.

So, the only thing I can say, other than I don't really know, is that physical stuff has exquisite malleability given certain parameters. — Manuel

That malleability is true. But I can imagine that all organisms, if matter doesn't possess something "extra", all life operates in the dark, so to speak. A face expressing fear would be very strange in that case.

It is a definition of art, and it is absolutely nailed – definitive! — Pop

So you think. But the thoughts you see are not universal. You say they are. I say they're not.

I think physical stuff is all there is. Including thoughts, imagination, etc. If certain configurations of physical stuff lead to mind, then physical stuff is richer than we initially think. — Manuel

But what's the true nature of physical stuff? Why should a huge collection of interacting almost pointlike particles see, hear and feel and see dreams and thoughts?

There are more humans on Earth than we have the ability to sustain without releasing GHGs that in turn warm the planet. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you think Earth is over-populated? I used to think no. But then I learned way back there were only max one million people on Earth. And only a few white tigers are left now. And even less pandas.

I'm not sure all people can't be sustained without emitting GHS's.

Jesus! You had an epiphany? Wow!

Ah yes! The poetic universe!

The Music of the Spheres — PoeticUniverse

You got a higher power (Coldplay). Nice poem!

I don't think it's a fact, it's a belief. You cannot show that atoms are conscious or experience something minimal. They may or they may not — Manuel

You think it's a fact? What about me eating atoms? They will enter my brain. I feel my brain. Doesn't that mean the atoms contain something more than pure matter?

Art and artificial are closeky related. An artificial material is one made by people. If future generations (or aliens) find plastic in the soils of the Earth, not knowing much about history, they will be able to infer it's artificialkity. But is plastic art? Is art imitating? What it imitates? 'Life", so the western spectator exclaims in an uncanny certainty. Now what is meant by that? Test-tube life? Ni, of course not. The exoression of our most intimate feelings? How then? By painting, by sculpting, by collage? No. By singing. Is singing art? Opera? Maybe. Two simple tines, their following uo, can akready cause a tear in me to well (theme frim "Interstellar", that so-called Kip-and-science-based based movie with one fatal flaw). Is that art? Is it a movie that is art? Depends on the movie. Tarkovski is nice. Two men filmed while shitting and eating each other's shit? Art? Can be. Art can be an expression of a worldview. That means science is art and physics the uktimate art. But so are the dit-pantings in down-under ("way down under Australia, very different from overhere, getting rid of Abo's one by one, buy cheap land for uranium, iit reminds me of Sweden, got the same sort of freeze on, all the animals look so strange, all victims of a testing range...").

Panpsychism is an interesting view, I don't think it's correct, but it's worth thinking about and pursuing. — Manuel

It is a fact. How else can the hard problem of consciousness be solved?

Making-ness makes making be made. — Yohan

You lost me here...

I can't conceive of happening without change. — Yohan

I mean that the velocity of the happening doesn't change.

DANG! The Divine Feminine.

Causality causes causality... — Yohan

What do you mean with this? Electric charge, mass, and six other charges are surrounded by condensates of virtual gauge particles. These are the cause. Colored gluons, cause of the strong force, can indeed cause other causes, other gluons. Hypergluons idem dito. Six different colors and hypercolors. But electric charge causes foton-causes. The electric charge doesn't cause causes but means to cause.

Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness. — praxis

Sounds like quantum vacuum. True empty space doesn't exist. There are always fluctuations of quantum fields.

I can ask, does causality actually happen? — Yohan

Causality doesn't happen. It makes happenings happen. It changes happenings. Without cause happenings happen but don't change.

It was simply not possible for reasons which include the difficulty/impossibility of visualizing what the equations of QM were saying. — TheMadFool

What are these reasons? Why writing difficulty/impossibility? Is it both? If it's difficult it's not impossible. Difficult but possible. Giving two possibilities always makes it right. Possible or not...Of course! I'm not asking about QM, I'm asking about QFT. QM can be induced from QFT. Which means QFT is the base.

According to Hume, causality doesn't exist. There is no impression of causality in the external world. But we form the idea of causality by habit of looking at events happening one after the other. — Corvus

Of course causality does exist. Even forks full of them causing forms to interact. Causality causing, so to speak. Causality is not an idea formed by "looking at events happening one after the other". An event doesnt happen. A happening happens. Events are singular, point-like (in general relativity , that is). A happening can show a relation with other happenings. A causality exists between them. If the happenings show no correlation there is no causality in between. Maybe inside the happenings themselves there exists a form of causality. That depends on the nature of the happenings.

Teleology reverses cause and effect, effectively. An effect of a happening can become the cause. That what is sought after and what one longs to happen. The teleos.

It's called "smiling depression". — baker

Smiling cynism seems more appropiate. I wonder if they know what a true depression feels like.

...how else can you think of a bodies? The kind of objects considered in Physics? Or something else? — Manuel

Something else than pure matter. Pure matter, near-point-particles, is an abstraction. Something is missing. Panpsychism?

I like him too. I even have a book about him. Of Escher too. He's great. And he truly has the skills. Both are very philo. Philart! The selfportrait in that ball... Wow. I don't know if Magritte did one. How would he have painted himself?