To refute 'All is Mind', one needs to show that there is substance, which I'd say includes forces/energy acting as substance, plus that Mind cannot make substance, plus that there can't be a kind of a movie going on through Mind in which everything operates exactly as if there were substance and its laws, and that if there is this perfect movie going on that a difference in the message between the faux and the true substance is not a difference that makes no difference.

A needle in a haystack — Michael McMahon

Back to your OP on that all is mind. The conceptualized mysteries ever baffle, not being able to be found in any haystack; they are led to, if your all-mind proposal is so, by Consciousness's fragmentation of the Whole that can be seen straight out by Awareness (the objectless kind). So, the smaller reality, r, would be the multiplicity formed by consciousness making distinctions, while the larger, real Reality would be the Unity.

To show mind to be all you might want to show that there is no real substance, 'Something', but still note that there cannot be 'Nothing', leaving mind as all.

For example, point 'particles' claimed by Physicists have no size/dimension, so then they cannot be substance. Look for more such cases.

we'd have to say that it really wasn't random — Metaphysician Undercover

Some research somewhere I can't remember suggest that the wave function collapse isn't instant or random, it becoming only after a gradual build-up.

'Random', though has a tough time of going away, although I'd like it to. Anton Zellinger claims to have proven that "randomness is the bedrock of reality" to many sigma, through experiments.

"Natural Selection" — Gnomon

In the regular uncapitalized natural selection, it is the 'selection' that is the scientific alternate to ID, meaning, too, that evolution doesn't work by chance, which is the same as you said about chance not being able to drive it.

I didn’t have the chance hearing of a religion (or religious doctrine) that doesn’t have rules to be obeyed by believers/its followers. — KerimF

If 'God' given free will is truly free, and unconditionally meant, as what we take 'free' to be, then any other attempts of the religion to have rules would be contradictory and wouldn't apply; however, I might add that a Person cannot be fundamental, for any system has to have parts—which would have to be more fundamental.

I came to the conclusion that "all is mind" by inference from the modern scientific theory that "all is Information". Einstein determined by theoretical reasoning that Matter is a form of Energy. Then Shannon determined mathematically that Information content can be measured by its degree of Entropy (negative energy). Which means that "Information" is equivalent to positive Energy. Therefore Information = Energy = Matter. Ironically though, the term "Information", prior to the 20th century referred only to the contents of minds, i.e. knowledge & concepts. Hence : Information = Mind. — Gnomon

Good on the equivalence, but more correct to substitute 'mass' for 'matter'. In e=mcc, 'm' is 'mass' and the equation is indeed showing equivalence, not that mass makes energy or vice-versa.

Time doesnt ezist — Gregory

It does appear that eternalism is so, given that 'what is' is all there is; however, there is no doubt that we experience time, which makes it to be emergent, as the poem's facts denies us any other kind of absoluteness.

can't generate itself — smartguy

That's really the point, that not anything can generate itself, so, we are left with 'what ever is' as a truth and a proof that 'something' has no alternative, no opposite. I can add, though, that a curious zero-sum balance of opposites is found, too, and so is appealing—why is this so is an interesting question, too.

I sometimes consider poetry to be a form of philosophy. — Gregory

Poetry unveils unapprehended hidden truths often in a logical precise, concise way that helps one maintain a focus on the question or answer, or something like that, but, as always, the content is the pearl.

we reach a point in which there are no rules of prior necessitation, only the unyielding result of the existence that is there. — Philosophim

Good conclusion, for there is no alternative to 'what is', such as a lack of anything, and it's doubly shown since there is not only something but also that any supposed 'it' of 'Nothingness' has no productive means (or it would be something and not 'Nothing.)

We can then go on to say that 'what is' is eternal in the sense that it cannot have a beginning or an end, making it to be unbreakable and unmakeable, deathless and ungenerated, etc.

Thus, we can then know that it must be here all at once, partless, continuous, and all the same, plus always only itself, which still goes if there are several such fundamental 'its'.

So, then, we look about us at what's suggested, finding what fully qualifies is:

On What ‘IS’

(Particles as excitations of fields)

An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which composites can grow.

There can’t be other directions given,
To that which no start; it is undriven;
So, it is as Everything possible,
Either as linear or exists at once.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualifiy as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are particles, then more.

The particles, etc., are temporary;
The Basis is coterminal with stuff,
But is not cosubstantial with the things;
Its information content is the same as Null!

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields are mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.

Further

There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events;
That would be a fantasy world but meant
For simulations and playing mind games;
No use entertaining real replacements.

no "choice" in the matter — Lida Rose

Good post, Lisa.

or – if always existed – how and mostly why is there something rather than nothing. — philosophience wordpress com

The 'something' is not optional, for there is something, plus 'nothing' cannot even be meant.

What is objective is what is common to all; if its degrees can vary across individuals then that aspect of it is subjective.

That the will (brain) is free to operate seems to be all the 'free' that one can have.

Strawson is saying that we are not responsible for what we've become.

What we've become is our will.

An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent
And partless, from which composites can grow.

There can’t be other direction given,
To that which has no start; it’s undriven;
So, it’s as Everything possible,
Either as linear or exists all at once.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: a wave/field is continuous,
And so it qualifies as Fundamental;
Its quantized lumps are particles, then more.

The particles, etc., are temporary;
What’s Basic is coterminal with stuff,
But is not cosubstantial with the things;
Its information content is the same as Null.

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got the boot;
Particles as spigots of fields are mute;
Classical fields have no fundamental loot.

There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events—
That would be a fantasy world only meant
For simulations and playing mind games;
No use entertaining real replacements.

What the meaning to this play we’re befit,
From dirt to dust within the script that’s writ?
The wise in search have thrown themselves to waste;
Experience alone is the benefit.

(Still no overall purpose, just local ones.)

(Poem needs more work on it for more rhymes and to have all ten-syllable lines.)

The Permanent is all that there is,
Its transmutations a temporary fizz.
It can’t have direction, with no inputs,
So, it's super-posed, seeming a Wiz.

The theory presents a mechanistic account of consciousness. — Malcolm Lett

Yes, for the contents of consciousness are compositional, that is, the parts come together into a unified whole. Consciousness's value to us for survival, for it reveals the distinctions important to us. Consciousness is intrinsic; consciousness exists only for itself; physics only deals with extrinsic causes.

Intelligence is what does the doing; consciousness is for being, exclusive, causing nothing but in itself, as the brain results leading to their representations in consciousness are already done and finished.

The existence of the feedback path is the explanation for why we have awareness of our thoughts — Malcolm Lett

'Feedback' is the key to the 'hard problem'; the conscious state maintains itself seamlessly as a non reducible whole. It might be, too, or alternatively, that qualia are the brain's own privately developed/evolved language.

Summary:

'The Feeling of Life Itself'
(There is a book out)

Physics describes but extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive,

Providing distinctions toward survival,
But causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

The posterior cortex holds the correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;

Thus, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
Which process is fundamental in nature,
Or's the brain’s private symbolic language.

The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For the nonconscious knows not what’s been made.

The most 'Real' would what is permanent, say, quantum fields, if they are the eternal basis. The temporaries that fields form, such as particles, and more, from the particles, on up, etc., would be a lesser degree of 'real,' while they last.

My Energy video: https://vimeo.com/338098562

That is one way to imagine the hypothetical fundamental non-entity I call "G*D". — Gnomon

You might call it 'G-O-D', for 'Ground Of Determination', or just the latter, to avoid confusion.

Covariant Quantum Fields seem to be more than to 'imagine', since Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has a basis and gives us the Standard Model of particles.

It's like a continuous unbounded unlimited Field of Potential (BEING), within which particles (worlds) emerge -- as-if by magic -- and then disappear again, without diminishing the Power of the Field. — Gnomon

Yes, 'Potential' for particles—particles are like a kink in a rope; they can move along the rope. The 'Field' would be permanent, which I think is what you mean by 'BEING'.[/quote]

This is not a traditional anthro-morphic deity, but a philosophical hypothesis to explain how our natural world seemingly emerged, complete with laws & energy, from nothing --- nothing but infinite Potential. Nothing is more "fundamental" than Existence (BEING). — Gnomon

'God' the Person is not possible; systems have parts and so they cannot be First and Fundamental, for the parts would have to be more fundamental.

Nor was a lack of anything an option; thus, having something is mandatory.

The 'Field' seems to be kind of like 'energy'.

PS__Don't you think this concept of BEING has poetic potential? :cool: — Gnomon

Heaven’s Great Wheel e’er whirls its energy,
It having to turn and return, to be,
Transmuting, as ne’er still—eternally,
Into life’s temporary pattern trees.

Eterne’s transitions doom forms’ permanence;
But the time required for their constructance
Restrains for a while the shapes’ destructance;
Thus they can slowly traverse life’s distance.

My 'Discussion of Being' video

There's a gap — Malcolm Lett

Summary of the book
'The Feeling of Life Itself'

Physics describes but extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive,

Providing distinctions toward survival,
But causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

The posterior cortex holds the correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;

Thus, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
Which process is fundamental in nature,
(Or the brain’s private symbolic language).

How does one understand the whole without understanding the parts? The very definition of a whole is that it's made up of parts. — TheMadFool

As in the proposed case of covariant quantum fields, the Fundamental can't have any parts, and so needs to be such as a 'wave' or a 'field', being simple and continuous. Of course, the notion of a 'God' person/system is as far off in the wrong direction as it could be.

If God created us then who create god?
Why does God has the chance of being God?
Why does Evil exist?
And a lot more... — philosopher004

As @TheMadFool mentions, the Fundamental has to be the simplest. Look for higher beings in the future, not the past, as all evolves toward more complexity. Complexity First is the most backward error that can be made. This Golden Template, that life has to come from Higher Life, namely 'God', fails after but one usage.

It can be shown that what 'IS' has to be so, since non-existence isn't an option, so there's no more asking about 'Why is there something rather than 'Nothing', for 'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

Currently, we suspect that quantum fields are what 'IS' permanent. Such as particles and higher are temporary, being quantized 'knots' of excitations in quantum fields. Thus, quantum fields are coterminal with the knots but not consubstantial, in the sense that the knots are not permanent. See Parmenidies.

Myth’s performance is now over its tasks;
The artists have taken off their masks.
The illusion is fading; it couldn’t last;
The science behind is appearing fast.

Preachers who persist in teaching about 'God' as if He were true are intellectually dishonest.

What is going on? — Benj96

The old Newton Absolute of an inert where/space went away. All is field, thought Einstein.

A good guess seems to be that fields themselves, and only them, form the substratum formerly known as space in which all plays out.

These would not be classical fields but covariant quantum fields, as Rovelli points out, that are what's being headed to as the final unveiling of reality's totality.

What has fallen by the wayside, in order:

1. Newton's separate, absolute space and time as backgrounds/containers, whose only quantity is volume, with particles in space moving through time—is gone. (Replaced by Einstein's spacetime.)

2. Faraday's and Maxwell's fields and particles as coming from spigots of particles—is gone, too. (Replaced by particles manifesting from fields, along with spacetime and other fields becoming covariant.)

3. Classical fields/particles—is gone (since no continuum, due to quantum discreteness). (Replaced by spacetime and quantum fields in quantum mechanics.)

4. Spacetime—is gone (now emergent). (To be replaced by covariant quantum fields in quantum gravity.)

Fields in general are granular, indeterminate, and relational. The particles manifesting exist as themselves only during interactions; they are not persistent things. Their spectrum is discrete, such as that electrons can only have certain orbitals (from this the periodic tables can be constructed). Gravitational field quanta are different; they are not in spacetime but they are spacetime.

There are no infinities (Einstein's curved spacetime is finite but boundless; Planck size / granularity /digital limit makes the size scale absolute, plus it eliminates classical, analog continuums of endless divisibility. No more Zeno paradoxes.)

No things are permanent; there's no fundamental lego type of building blocks that can build anything. (Called constitutionalism?)

There is no original space and time. In Quantum Gravity theory, 'time' would amount to a counting of beats but there is no universal clock; 'space' quanta serve as 'space' themselves; no Newton type 'space' is required.

Timeless existence must support change but the only type of change we know of is within time. This is the issue I am roadblocked on. — Devans99

We note that things change, of course, but this implies some kind of thingness about things. Well, perhaps that apparently worthless sentence is a clue.

Let me try harder. We think that some semblance of an object continues on to now from before, as if there is a form behind substance. Maybe a clue to extrinsic/intrinsic.

I'll try more. It's still that no fixed object is identical with itself over time, so, well, it's not really a fixed object, or it would still be the same, so, maybe, um, the object goes away and gets replaced with object that has progressed a bit. Enfoldment/infoldment?

In conclusion, I seem to have kept time as it appears to us, but have gotten rid of true motion.

Timelessness is a mighty puzzle - it maybe unsolvable. — Devans99

The Timeless cannot be any one state in particular because there is no input point to what never began, so, it is everything, and we go on to note that it doesn't remain as anything particular even for an instant, but continually transmutes, according to what we call the laws of nature, in a topological type way—remaining as itself at heart.

Or, still as mostly above, but we traverse through everything, on our world line path already carved out, since we had a particular start.

We’ve approached the Mystery, and have found
That Beginnings can’t be, so what goes round
Must be all things, for there’s no point to impart
A design; so drink—to naught more we’re bound!

dipolar God — 3017amen

Good and Evil sprang from Wrong and Right,
When from naught twin Genii split day and night.
Oh, fear not that black’s might can vanquish white;
Darkest night can’t e’en quench the smallest light!

Except that they were really the same Guy.

The idea of superposition - that one thing could sort of be in two places at the same time - does not sit well with me. I prefer to think as matter as a spread out wave of energy that collapses to a very small wave when we measure it. Something being in two places at the same time - no way is that possible is my gut reaction. — Devans99

Yet, the timeless needs be everything, which thus has to be all-at-once and ever, such as in a superposition.

Gee, well, something exists!! LOL — 3017amen

We can see Nature and that it Rules. It sent a plague of locusts in Africa that blotted out the sun, 100 degrees F in Siberia, a killer virus, and even Trump…

If you want an Invisible Person to rule, He needs to conform to exactly what Nature does, which doesn't really add anything to Nature's natural goings on.

what would it take for us to be accurately perceiving the present moment? — Bartricks

It would have to be instant; no perceiving; no figuring out; no processing at all.

I am not following you. Presentism is, as I understand it (and I am not at all sure I do), the view that only those things that have presentness actually exist. So it is not really a view about time, as such, but a view about existence. — Bartricks

Presentism is the temporal mode of time, there is only now; the future is not yet and the past is gone. All is generated anew, as the new now from the previous now, which goes away. It's not clear how thick or thin the now is. This clashes with Einstein's relativity.

Anyway, can you explain how the view that only present things exist would show that our perceptions of the present are accurate and not systematically mistaken? — Bartricks

Assuming presentism, our perceptions as to what is present are brain memories stitched together in consciousness, but the real events have already perished. It's like watching a tape-delayed TV show; it's not really live, although it's close.

In the non-temporal mode of time, eternalism, there is no time, for this mode is timeless. It's like Einstein's Block universe. All the events are pre-canned; the future and the past exist ever. Somehow, we pass though it, giving us our apparent now.

In the growing block mode of time, the past is kept and ever remains but the future is not yet.

I don't see how the view I have expressed is 'presentism'. — Bartricks

I'm just saying that I've treated the presentist mode of time, so far, and so the only hope lies in the eternalist mode, wherein every event/path of Everything is all at once, with no becoming, but just us somehow proceeding along world lines, although this is difficult for us to tell apart from presentism.

And so on. — Bartricks

That's the presentist outlook; now, if we are to get around that, we need to consider the eternalize. viewpoint, wherein already complete events are simple presented…

Of course, we only experience what's already past. Merely, light finite speed takes care of that by itself. Then there is the 300-500 millisecond delay required for the brain to make something out of what's happening. However, one goals continue across these gaps. Still, all in all, what consciousness thinks it is deciding right then and there has already been decided, which is bad news for hopeful free willers.

'What IS', even if it's just capability/possibility needs to be timeless and eternal, as 'ever', for it is mandatory, as the default, given that there is no alternative for there not to be anything at all.

Necessarily, due to no beginning or outside to it, it must be every path of events since there is no design point for it to be just one particular path of events. This is akin to the Block Universe.

'What IS', then, can never be still, and is seen not to be, for it continuously transmutes at every instant, nor can it stop because it can never go away. It is powerless over not being.

Not being still makes for all but it to be temporary; its being itself is necessity and thus all that is permanent.

Given that is does what it does, it will ever do that, meaning that it ever turns and returns in its transmutations guided by its laws of nature.

It is not holy, it just is, as like some topological structure that can always be taken back to itself at any point, although ever having to proceed through its transitions.

We, although appearing to progress in a presentist mode of time must somehow be passing through the 'IS', or, probably, we are it. The mind rememberers what has been passed through and thus we seem to be progressing in a presentism mode.

We have often asked why some space exists,
Why it permits the countless to briefly persist
On Mother Earth, nourished under Father Sky—
All of those finite sparks that light and die.

Behind the Veil, being that which e’er thrives,
The Eternal ‘IS’ has ever been alive,
For that which hath no onset cannot die,
Nor a point from which to impart its Why.

Some time it needed to variate Everything for,
And now knows how these bubbles to pour,
Of existence, in some ‘meant’ universe,
Those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse.

So, as thus thou lives on yester’s credit line,
In nowhere’s midst, now in this life of thine,
For of its bowl our cup of brew was mixed
Into the state of being that’s called ‘mine’.

Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last,
That the likes of us will become the past,
Space wondering whither whence we went
After the last of us her life has spent?

The Eternal Saki has formed trillions of baubles
Like ours, for e’er—the comings and passings
Of which it ever emits to immerse
In those universal bubbles blown and burst.

So fear not that a debit close your
Account and mine, knowing the like no more;
The Eternal Source from its pot has pour’d
Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When You and I behind the cloak are past,
But the long while the next universe shall last,
Which of one’s approach and departure it grasps
As might the sea’s self heed a pebble cast.

Eternalism, Presentism, and … more?

By this do you mean ‘becoming’ as a linear event and so of time? — Brett

Yes, and in opposition to 'being'/'is'.

It appears that what 'is' has no alternative, else there wouldn't be anything; so, it's not just that 'is' is possible but that it's mandatory, given no opposite, and so it needs be all at once, and needs be everything but not anything in particular, since it can't have a design point. Nor can it go away; it is permanent.

Its transmutations according to the laws of nature are temporary and so fleeting that not anything particular remains even for an instant; however, certain semblences seem to continue on as if from a moment ago—these are long events, such as trees, rocks, protons, and us.

If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time? — Brett

Yes, it seems that everything exists at once, as all possible paths/events, in no time, as eternal, which we can logically find out since what has no beginning cannot have any input; thus, everything, Maning all possible particulars/events.

Why, then, do we experience 'becoming'? Somehow, we are traveling through the Everything Block along some particular path.

I say logically nothing can not exist by itself like black can not exist without white. I’m saying nothing and everything is one thing with two sides. — Zelebg

Am still for an idea something like yours above.

An eternal everything that can't come from anything seems rather similar to amounting from/to nothing.

It really means superposition of everything is equal to nothing, not identical and not because it is actually nothing, but because it is effectively nothing. — Zelebg

Given no point for Everything to have any input, since it can't have a beginning, it must be everything in a superposition because it cannot be anything particular.

Indeed, as it somehow plays out to us, it doesn't remain as anything particular even for an instant.

Effectively, the information content of Everything in superposition and Nothing are both zero.