Your answer hinges, it seems to me, what's "good" or "right" and what's "wrong".

What's good in and by itself? Love of your country? Love of your mother? Love of your spouse? Then you get into immediate contention of what's good if someone has a different coutry of his or her own, or differnt mother, or different spouse, and you at the same time have to share resources that are not enough in quantity for all involved. — god must be atheist

I think what you're ambling toward is the recognition that "good" is relative. What's good for me might not be good for you. Killing the bacteria that cause TB is good if you're a human, but not so much if you're a TB bacterium. So "good" and "evil" are relative, and we plough into nonsense when we try to characterise anything as good or bad, because that judgement is different for everyone, and for every creature.

Isn't that the difficulty you're complaining about?

What are your axioms? — Devans99

Personally, I have none. Science and mathematics have axioms. It's an impressive-sounding synonym for "guess", to avoid directly admitting to guesswork. Axioms are things scientists hope are true, and believe are true, but for which there is no proof, or even supporting evidence. They are accepted without challenge or doubt. Exactly like (religious) dogma: axioms are things you must accept if what follows is to make sense.

I have many beliefs. One or two might even be correct. But I don't call them axioms. Where appropriate, I call them "guesses". :wink: :up:

an axiom like 'the whole is greater than the parts' — Devans99

That's an axiom? I thought it was just a saying; folklore? :chin:

I guess we need to keep an open mind as to what is possible. — Devans99

Yes! And so perhaps it is worth considering, as my OP requests, whether the axiom of causality is universally applicable? After all, axioms are accepted without discussion or dispute, just as dogma must be, in some religious contexts. Maybe it's worthwhile questioning any or all axioms, to the extent that this is possible? [N.B. I ask that we consider, not attack, these axioms.]

If Yahweh or any other mainstream god can live in some supernatural realm, then so can Odin and Thor.

Right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Right! :up:

Sorry, I'd have to disagree with that. Perhaps we could say instead that "Guesswork is the bedrock of reality", at least from a human perspective? :chin:

It's a common observation, but it seems it needs saying one more time: not all religion is Christian, or even Abrahamic. "The supernatural" covers much more than just this.

Very nicely put. I agree. — WerMaat

:blush:

I'm religious and I believe in the supernatural.

My religion helps me to organize my mind. The religious concepts and stories help me fit the world into a pattern that makes sense to me and gives me stability. Through faith, I understand my place in the world and my relation to other people, and to nature.

That being said, I'm enough of a sceptic to admit that there's no proof to my beliefs, and in the end it's a personal choice. And for me, there is no dissonance between religion and science. A god that would gift me with a rational mind and then ask me to believe blindly in incoherent concepts... that's absurd.

The supernatural is exactly that: The part of the world that we cannot grasp with science and logic. So we need to rely on intuition, metaphor and faith. — WerMaat

I'll return the compliment: Very nicely put. I agree.

So I doubt that the current version of QM proves existence of causeless effects - it seems it is not a precise enough description of reality to make any such claim. — Devans99

I agree with this. But what you say applies to any and all scientific theories concerning 'reality'. After all, our theories serve only to map 'reality', not to define it. So I think it's fair to complement what you say with this: there is no scientific theory that accounts for, explains or justifies conventional causality: effects that are caused. Just as QM cannot justify or explain it, or any alternate form of causality.

[And BTW, QM is science's most successful theory to date, by far, despite its non-intuitive flavour.]

Coming up with terms in philosophy is pretty fair game and one thing you’ll find is that some of the concepts we already know are interpreted differently by different philosophers. — Mark Dennis

Agreed, and there are other strong arguments opposing what I said; arguments that I would often have deployed myself. I said what I did because we're kicking out at sacred cows here. If it should be that there are causeless effects, or 'reverse causality', it would be too easy to unconsciously deny such a thing by pretending that causality remains valid because we continue to use the same term. Perhaps I was focussing too closely on this aim? :wink:

No-one has ever observed directly a virtual particle — Devans99

Yes, in another discussion, we might be observing that we humans have no sensory/perceptual access to that which is. In the same way, we can't see much that is smaller than a grain of salt, so the very existence of such things can only be inferred. And when the particles are non-physical, and maybe "virtual" too, things don't get any easier. But does this address the question of whether conventional causality applies universally? I'm not sure. :chin:

So maybe the correct thing to say is that the piano was caused by life of inventor/inventor themselves with a future abstraction contributive factor? — Mark Dennis

Again, it's the terms that bother me. Please don't misunderstand: I'm not being a vocabulary-nazi here. I'm not insisting on the creation of a new term whenever we discover something a bit different. But I am observing that if we re-use old terms to describe new things, we tell ourselves that 'they're the same, really'. Don't we? :wink: And we tell ourselves in a way that isn't obvious, unless we pause and think more carefully.

Maybe my point is without use or value, I'm not sure. But this is an interesting subject, and it is worth discussing further, IMO. :up:

Let me try and think up some preliminary appropriate wording... — Mark Dennis

Please do!

So as much as I wanted their to be a credible argument against determinism I dont think this is it, just that the concept is perhaps softer than people think. However if you think this means causality doesnt work in this case at all feel free to expand on that line of thinking and justify it for us. — Mark Dennis

I don't dispute what you describe, and I too find it very interesting. :up: My point is only that I think it misleading to use the term "causality" to describe something very different from the general definition of causality, where the effect chronologically precedes its own cause. As long as we retain and use the old term, the more we obscure the difference between this new circumstance and the 'traditional' ones. :chin:

As for QM, it is debated as to whether it is truly probabilistic or just seems to be that way. Is it our observation that determines the state/vector of a particle with wave/particle duality or does our observation merely observe the state/vector it was always on.

If it is the former, then I would say that all effects still have causes, however some effects can locate their causes as being in front of them in time. It's not as simple as a past cause creates a future effect. — Mark Dennis

If the effect precedes its 'cause', this isn't "causality" (as we define, and understand, it), is it? It is more a redefinition of our existing term to avoid admitting that causality doesn't work in such a case, isn't it? :chin:

Should we consider only objective truth when talking about lying or should we take in consideration also what *we* consider being the truth, so subjective factors — Patulia

I think this is a great example of how unhelpful the concept of "objective truth" can be. As for lying, I think it includes an element of intention. If you told an untruth unknowingly, it's a lie in the sense that what you said is incorrect, but you did not intend to mislead, and you told the truth as you understood it. So is it really a "lie"? It comes down to semantics, and the definition of "lie" that you decide upon.

Language, on the other hand, builds or constructs or sets up information... — Banno

...and then communicates it? :chin:

Instead, let us ask if it is possible for any physical entity or event to exist spontaneously and in isolation from all other physical entities and events. — charles ferraro

No, this isn't about existence, or creation, it's about causality. So, as you suggest, let's ask if it is possible for any event to happen spontaneously, and definitely not "in isolation from all other events". If an event is causeless, if there is such a thing, it can still happen in the context of, and in association with, all the other events happening in the universe. :chin: I don't think "causeless" means "unconnected"; I think it means 'without a cause'. :up:

I think.
Causeless can be exist and not be exist.
Its Impossible and Possible at the same time.
Let's say we are going to create something out of nothing and that thing is suddenly popped and exist like its nothing, It is said Causeless because that thing is suddenly exist without any cause. But its also considered 'Cause' because hey, we wanted to do it right? — SpaceNBeyond

A causeless event does not describe something being created from nothing, it refers only to something happening spontaneously.

Effects by definition are caused. — GodlessGirl

Yes, this topic recognises that causality is a dogma that is created solely by definition, and wonders whether the creation of this axiom is actually justified? :chin:

Intuitionalism sounds interesting, but what on earth is it? :wink:

I let this Nietzsche quote here. ''The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.'' — andreiachim

A rather one-sided quote, don't you think? Humans are a co-operative species, and it's that co-operation, and our adaptability, that has allowed us to reach the heights (?) that we have. So the way we live is a careful compromise between the individual and the community. It's a mistake, I think, to consider the individual alone, out of context.

But welcome to the party!

I think your view is quite widely shared, especially amongst those keen on science and analytic philosophy. But I'm not addressing that view directly. I'm suggesting that these qualities you seem to despise are just part of us; an intrinsic part of us. I am not Spock or Data; I am only me, a human. I have feelings and emotions, prejudices, biases and opinions. Take those away, and I am just Spock or Data. That which is me would be gone.

In principle, I'd agree that our prejudices, both conscious and pre-conscious, should be rooted out, but many cognitive biases are very deep-seated indeed. I do think that the first step towards managing such biases is understanding them. — Pantagruel

I think our prejudices form a central part of who and what we are. To blithely state that they should be rooted out shows a belief that this is even possible, never mind desirable. Our prejudices, beliefs, biases and opinions are the things that distinguish us, one from another. What remains is mostly what we all have in common.

Thoughts? :chin:

If a being exists, its explanation must exist. — Dfpolis

This assertion worries me. It doesn't ring true. Why "must" every being have an accompanying explanation? Is this knowledge that has escaped me thus far? Do *I* have an explanation, and if so, what is it? You seem to be saying that every being has a purpose. That may be so, but do we know it for a fact, or is it wishful thinking?

Any specific completed creation is surely the result of a creative process? — Pattern-chaser

It can only be an anticipated result while the process is occurring. — Possibility

Yes:

Any specific completed creation is surely the result of a creative process? — Pattern-chaser

Science is a Joke — SpaceNBeyond

I disagree. Science is a powerful and useful tool, which has delivered all kinds of useful stuff. It's just that science is not applicable to every problem and every situation.

But we can even challenge or doubt that "Objective Reality exists", so "objective truth exists" is not an objective truth, it is a personal truth. — leo

It seems a shame to delve into the one and only statement of Objective Truth that can - knowingly and correctly - be made by a human. Personally, I am convinced that we can deduce from the cogito - despite problems with "Who is this 'I'?", and so forth - that something has actual (Objective) existence. Therefore Objective Reality exists, and that something is all or part of it. But there are no other such claims to Objective correctness that a human can knowingly make. That's why what-we-might-call hard Objectivity is so pointless. It can only ever apply to issues that are hypothetical, and must remain so.

It seems to me that the concept is used by people who want to impose their personal truth on others, as if they had a transcendent access to a supposed objective reality beyond perception. — leo

:up: That is surely one possible explanation. It's the one I personally favour, but I have no Objective evidence, obviously, so.... :wink: :lol:

we'd be better off simply talking about personal truth, and not pretend that our personal truths somehow apply to everyone and everything. — leo

Again, how could I disagree? :up: :wink:

in my view a specific completed creation (particularly a successful one) need not be part of a process that tends towards creation in general. — Possibility

Any specific completed creation is surely the result of a creative process?

I am puzzled that, in this discussion, some posters seem to minimise the importance, or even presence, of creation in the creative process*. Have I misunderstood, or missed something? :chin:

* - I claim only that creation is at the heart of the creative process. Important to state there is more to the creative process than creation, though. :up:

And I always forget that the UK standards have required religion (I get you can opt out, but if the default is you are in then most will do it)...Is the "required" material all about the Church of England or is it more of an exposure to all major religions? — ZhouBoTong

Can't help you, I'm afraid. I was educated in a religious cult (Roman Catholicism), and all other colours of religion - including atheism - were collected together and identified by the term "non-Catholic". I was offered no education at all on any other religion, including other flavours of Christianity. I stopped attending church as soon as I was old enough to shoulder the responsibility of damning my soul for all eternity (by denying Catholicism). Hmm. :meh:

If it cannot be challenged or doubted then it is something everyone agrees on, no? If it is more than "something everyone agrees on", then what is this "more"? — leo

An Objective statement is one that correctly describes some aspect of Objective Reality, i.e. that which actually is. A statement correctly identified as Objective cannot be challenged or doubted because there is no possibility of it being wrong. And that is the "more" you asked for. :smile:

The silliness comes in when we remember that Objective statements cannot be correctly made by humans, except to say that Objective Reality exists. So this is all hypothetical. In practice, because we don't have a means to apprehend OR directly, it doesn't exist for us. N.B. I said "in practice"! :wink:

how would you know God is utterly transcendent? — Coben

Of course I wouldn't, in absolute terms. So I'm reduced to guesswork, as we humans so often are. There has never been even the smallest piece of scientifically-acceptable evidence that God has detectable/measurable existence in the space-time universe that science describes so well. So I reluctantly guess that this will continue to be the case. What alternative is there?

It is normal to learn philosophy in Europe at lower grade levels. — ZhouBoTong

That's good news! What countries do this? My country, the UK, doesn't.

Have I made a logical error, and if so, where? — CurlyHairedCobbler

I'm sure there will be many other opinions expressed here, but mine is this. Your mistake is to apply logic and reason to a being whose existence is not accompanied by evidence. I.e. the sort of evidence that scientists would consider valid and useful. Lacking evidence, your use of reason and logic stops at the first hurdle: without evidence, you cannot proceed; The End.

If we say that objective truth exists out there but we can't access it or not all of us can access it, then how is that an objective truth? If no one can access it then it's an idea, not a thing — leo

That's exactly how it is, and it's (IMO) the reason why Objectivism and analytic philosophy are a pointless waste of time.

If we say objective truth is something everyone agrees on... — leo

In fairness, there's rather more to it than that. Objective Reality is 'that which actually is', and Objective Truth is an accurate statement describing some aspect of Objective Reality. This is so regardless of the thoughts, opinions or beliefs of any individual or group of individuals. An Objective Truth is true. It cannot be challenged or doubted. It's a lot more than "something everyone agrees on".

We already have philosophy that is as suited to aliens as it is to humans. It's a sad consequence of us trying to be 'objective' (unbiased) in our investigations of ourselves and the universe. Messrs Spock and Data would be quite at home with a bunch of human analytic philosophers, or sciencists.

From this you may gather it's my opinion that we need a more human-oriented philosophy. :up: :wink:

in my opinion there's no plausible way to support it — Terrapin Station

OK. I was only seeking to clarify what you meant by the phrase "objective world". Subjectivity/Objectivity debates can often be fun. But because they are fundamental to so many different topics, it's easy to derail almost any topic by raising it. So I'll stop here, but make a note-to-self that you and I will discuss what you posted another time, in another topic (an O/S topic). OK? :smile: Should be fun... :wink:

The op brought up the ‘the creative animal’, not ‘the artistic animal’. They’re two distinct beings to me. — Brett

Art is something made visible by using the creative act as a tool, it’s not just the creative act. Art is a metaphor. First there’s the idea, then the visible metaphor. The creative act gives form to the metaphor. — Brett

Yes, that seems right. But, although creativity and art are, in some ways, distinct, we should remember that art is creative. Creation is at the heart of art; art cannot exist without it.

The objective world is the nonmental world. You observe it via your senses. — Terrapin Station

There are some who contend that we have no knowing access to Objective Reality (that which is), and that the world we observe with our senses is not necessarily O.R. I think from your words that you refer to something a little less absolute than the Objectivist's Objective Reality; is that correct?

I suspect you are much more than that. (Or much little? :halo: ) — Frotunes

Much more (or less) than what?

Still better to not add to the objective reality by adding a fantasy that one must believe in to be saved. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How? — Pattern-chaser


By applying logic and reason of course. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You grasp Objective Reality by logic and reason? Lucky this topic concerns the supernatural, then. You are clearly much loved by the Gods, to have given you such power. Power they withhold from all other men. — Pattern-chaser

Why did you ignore my question and returned with this garbage instead? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Just responding in kind, young friend.

Live long and prosper!