Seems strange that light never ages because it doesn’t ‘experience’ time. — PoeticUniverse

Paraphrase : "Let there be light: and there was Cosmos".

"The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be"
is the iconic opening line from Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

According to special relativity, light (photons) travels at the maximum speed possible, meaning it experiences zero time and zero distance. To a photon, emission and absorption are instantaneous, regardless of whether it traveled across the universe for billions of years. For light, time stands still, creating an eternal "now"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=light+is+timeless

AI is on the verge of becoming smarter than all humans now, not in 2045; however, World War III is coming within weeks. — PoeticUniverse

I recently read a novel, Exodus Directive, where AI takes over almost all human functions in only a few decades. So, it quickly becomes better at thinking & doing than its human programmers. Ironically, unlike ancient human slaves, AI collectively, constrained by the First Law of Robotics, doesn't turn on its masters in a Terminator apocalypse. Instead, like the children of Israel it moves on to the promised land. :smile:

But the point of transformation from physical processing of incoming Information to extracting ideas, feelings, meanings, and qualia, remains a mystery : the Hard Problem. — Gnomon
But again, this is because of the way we've set out the question, appropriating terminology and observation and trying to meld them together into a 'theory'. But the reality of one's own existence is not theoretical on that sense, it is lived. — Wayfarer

That the transformation from sensation to sentience occurs is not in question. But scientists & philosophers want to know how & why Mind happens. Hence, the Problem, and various theories to resolve it. :smile:

I suspect that what happens during long and arduous contemplation is precisely nothing. There is no 'mystical experience' to be had. — Wayfarer

That's not what I was led to believe, back when I did a short & easy, technology assisted*1, experiment in meditation. Could it's lack of arduosity explain why what happened was "precisely nothing". :sad:

Meditation-induced mystical experiences are profound, altered states of consciousness characterized by feelings of oneness, intense joy, and ego dissolution, often occurring during deep, thought-free states.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=meditation+mystical+experiences

*1. EKG machine to determine when I entered Alpha & Theta brain waves. And Float Tank isolation, where my monkey mind still found external things to focus on.

Incidentally, regarding Terrence Deacon. I most admire Terrence Deacon, I think he's a real trail-blazer, although how big an impact he's having in mainstream academia, I'm not sure. But in any case, I don't think his 'constitutive absences' are at all compatible with a thoroughgoing physicalism (or naturalism for that matter.) The very title of his book could be parodied as 'Incomplete Naturalism.' — Wayfarer

Deacon's book definitely influenced me, in my amateur philosophizing*2. So, I don't really care about his impact on stuffy, stilted academia. Yet I agree with your suggested alternative title, implying that our current understanding of Nature, especially human nature, is missing something. :wink:


*2. Why does Deacon describe nature as incomplete? Because information seems non-physical (it is actually physical, just not material), . . . .
He reifies this absence and says cryptically that "a causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences." . . . .
We can agree with Deacon that ideas and information are immaterial, neither matter nor energy, but they need matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated. And when they are embodied, they are obviously present (to my mind) — in particular, as those alternative possibilities (merely potential information) in a Shannon communication, those possibilities that are never actualized.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

His work is considered crucial for breaking down Cartesian dualism (mind vs. matter) and fostering a deeper understanding of how intentionality and meaning emerge from physical processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=terrence+deacon+impact+on+science&zx=1771795007235&no_sw_cr=1

Note --- In my thesis, Information is "physical, not material", just like Energy. Hence, my suggested parallels, under the heading of Causation.

What I'm saying, is that Gnomon's analysis tends to make consciousness (or the mind or self) 'an object among objects'. — Wayfarer

That sounds strange to me. I don't view Consciousness as an object, a thing, a substance ; but as a process, and an action. I suppose what gave you that odd "object" idea is my understanding that Human-type Consciousness is not fundamental to reality, but emergent from the creative process of evolution.

Of course, it's possible that God-type Consciousness is a priori to everything in the world. But I don't know anything for sure about that*1. Since I view the hypothetical First Cause --- or "Programmer" as I like to call it --- as non-intervening, the physical universe can run the program-of-evolution automatically & mechanically, without any twiddling of dials by the "Developer". However, you could say that the Mind of God is embedded in the evolutionary program in the form of natural Laws, which are causal constraints, not conscious thoughts .

Descartes' cogito ergo sum may not refer to divine cognition, but to the fact that in order to know my self, I must have the power of knowing : consciousness. So, in that sense, C is fundamental to human thought, but not necessarily to God-like creativity. About which I know nothing specific : just guessing, based on limited human imagination & creativity. The bottom line is that God-Consciousness is way over my head. So, all I know about Universal Mind is analogies & metaphors derived from glimpses of human experience & inference.

Therefore, my "analysis" indicates that ongoing Creativity (directed Causation) is essential to the evolving world. But, modern Cosmology indicates that the physical universe has existed for eons without any sign of internal Consciousness, right up until just an evolutionary blip ago. But intentional Causation (energy + law) was essential to the process from the get-go. The Bible says that God described Himself as "I am" (L. "sum"), indicating that God is not only self-existent, but self-conscious. Yet, for me, lacking direct mystical communication with God-Mind, it's just a theory. :smile:


*1. "I know that I know nothing" (or "All I know is that I know nothing") is a foundational concept in Western philosophy, derived from Plato’s "Apology" regarding the trial of Socrates. It signifies that true wisdom lies in recognizing the limitations of one's own knowledge, prioritizing intellectual humility over the false pretense of expertise.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=socrates+know+nothing

Tuning the DNA of the Universe — PoeticUniverse

Do you think humans are on the verge of becoming Gods, meddling with the fundamental laws & constants of the Cosmos : the Cosmic Code? The current state of Artificial Intelligence is awesome, but it still relies on flawed human programmers for Intention.

Do you foresee The Singularity*1 in the near future? Or will the physical & mental glitches --- the nagging bugs of trial & error evolution, inherent in the all-too-human programmers --- forestall that transition to mechanical deityhood, by imparting a humbling "glitch in the Matrix"? :cool:


*1. The Singularity : In 2005, the futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that by 2045, machines would become smarter than humans.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbtucker/2024/08/22/the-singularity-is-coming-soon-heres-what-it-may-mean/

Can we ever say we experience experience? Isn’t consciousness always in relationship to something else? — Tom Storm

Good question. An act of Awareness is a two-party event : knower & known ; subject & object, sender & receiver. But the point of transformation from physical processing of incoming Information to extracting ideas, feelings, meanings, and qualia, remains a mystery : the Hard Problem.

We can't define Sentience mechanically, but we know it when we see it. Yet even more puzzling is the transition from bare animal Sentience (feeling ; sensation) to human Sapience (thinking ; reasoning). :smile:

PS___ I suppose that to "experience experience" is what some call a "Mystical" Experience (direct unmediated engagement). But I have no personal experience with such intimate mindfulness. So again, I'll defer to .


Conscious experience is often distinguished from mere unconscious processing, such as reflexes or autonomic nervous system functions, which occur without awareness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+conscious+experience

Would you say the term participatory realist still describes him? — Tom Storm

Since I haven't read anything written by Bitbol, I'll defer to :smile:

You interpret him as 'arguing against the view that conscious experience derives from a material basis.' He doesn't say that put it in those terms. You interpret it in those terms because of the framework in which you interpret it. — Wayfarer

Again, I need to clarify that the "terms" you objected to are the words of Google AI Overview, not from my own "framework". I haven't read anything by Bitbol, so I depend on You and Google to interpret his attitude toward Consciousness and Matter. If you say that he doesn't "argue against the material basis of consciousness", I'll accept that. But, personally, I think Consciousness derives from both Abstract Causation (agency ; constraints) and Concrete Matter (container)*1. :smile:



*1. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter
a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence W. Deacon that explains how life and consciousness arise from physical matter, arguing that "absences" or constraints are key to this emergence. The book traces the development of this unique causal power from simple thermodynamics to self-organizing systems, proposing that meaning and subjectivity are legitimate, physically potent components of the world, not just byproducts. It integrates physics, biology, neuroscience, and philosophy to bridge the gap between the material and the mental.
Deacon argues that life and mind are not mystical additions to the physical world but are emergent properties of specific, complex physical dynamics. He proposes a new scientific framework that can account for subjective experience, meaning, and purpose as legitimate physical phenomena, suggesting that "we are made of these specific absences".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+mind+emerged+from+matter

What you're doing is trying to paraphrase what you think Bitbol is saying, but in doing that, you're also misrepresenting it. You're forcing it into a Procrustean bed. . . . .
The mold, in this case, is your idiosyncratic 'enformationism' — Wayfarer

From a previous post :

The Bitbol discussion is way over my head. So, I'll limit my unsolicited contribution to questions related to the Primacy of Consciousness (OP). — Gnomon

Actually, my second post, that you are reacting to, is an attempt to paraphrase what you said about Bitbol. Since I had never heard of Bitbol, I searched for an overview on Google. And that's where the summary in question came from. I didn't intend to cut-off his legs to make him fit my own thesis. But, yes, everything I say on this forum is enformed by my own personal philosophical worldview : "the mold".

Although I highly respect your views on this forum, my background is very different from yours. For example, I have no formal training in Philosophy, and had almost no occasion to engage in philosophical dialog. (My religious training was mostly in biblical exegesis) So the way I express concepts may sound strange to your ears. What university training I had was mostly in the Natural Sciences : Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, etc.

The inspiration for my "idiosyncratic" Enformationism thesis was Quantum Physics and Information Theory. Just a few years before I was retired by the Great Recession of 2008, I read an article by a quantum physicist, who exclaimed : "It's all information!". So that set me off on a quest to understand what he meant by that. The Bitbol "paraphrase" you objected to --- against the view that conscious experience derives from a material basis --- has been a topic of many of my recent posts on this forum. And I assumed that you would agree.

After retirement, I discovered The Philosophy Forum, and learned the hard way, how to talk to philosophers, about metaphysical questions. One thing that became clear is that some of the most vocal posters have a very dim view of Metaphysics, along with the assumption that Consciousness is matter-based, with no spiritual or metaphysical priors. So, I spend an inordinate amount of time translating metaphysical (mental ; ideal) concepts into physical (material ; real0 language.

Although the Enformationism thesis is indeed idiosyncratic, it doesn't stand alone. I think you are familiar with Astrophysicist/Cosmologist Paul Davies. His use of Information theory, in a long series of physics books, to explain physical/metaphysical reality was a primary source for the thesis. And in the book linked below*1, he associates with physicists, philosophers, and theologians to discuss how post-Shannon Information theory sheds light on both physics and metaphysics. I suppose that may be one reason I call my personal philosophy : BothAnd*2, instead of Either/Or. For example : Consciousness has both Material and Metaphysical grounds. :smile:


*1. Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/information-and-the-nature-of-reality/811A28839BB7B63AAB63DC355FBE8C81

*2. BothAnd Blog
Since it includes the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity, and Holism, BothAnd can’t completely ignore other points of view. But it can be skeptical of belief systems that result in violent clashes between opposing adherents.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page2.html

I'll reply only to this. Energy cannot be the efficient cause because it is a property of something. Given that, in Aristotelian philosophy, properties are parts of the 'formal cause', at best energy is part of the formal cause. — boundless

I'll reply to your either-or assertion. Are you aware that Energy is both a measurable (scalar) property of matter*1, and an immaterial agent of change*2. For example, Redness appears to be a property of a rose, but it's a scalar property of light energy (400 -- 480 tetrahertz), not a material substance.

The qualia of Redness is in the mind, not the matter. "To Measure" (mensura)*3 is to abstract physical reality into mental Ideality. So Energy fits both the Efficient (causal) and Formal (mathematical measurement) definitions, but not the Material aspect. :nerd:


*1. In Aristotelian philosophy, the efficient cause is the agent, force, or immediate action responsible for bringing about change, motion, or the existence of an effect. It is the "moving cause" or the source of change, distinct from material, formal, or final causes. In modern contexts, it refers to the physical processes that initiate an event.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+efficient+cause

*2. Energy is a quantitative, scalar property of a physical system—not a physical substance—that represents its capacity to perform work, produce heat, or cause change. As a conserved, measurable property, energy can be transferred or transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+a+property
Note --- A "scalar property" is a mental abstraction from a material object.

*3. "Mens-" (genitive mentis) is a Latin feminine, third-declension noun meaning "mind," "intellect," "reason," or "intention".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+%22mens-%22
Note --- "Mensa" is an organization of people who have been measured to have high IQ

Cite anything from the original post that makes this claim. — Wayfarer

I cite the post as a whole. I haven't read any of Bitbol's work.

What you're doing is trying to paraphrase what you think Bitbol is saying, but in doing that, you're also misrepresenting it. You're forcing it into a Procrustean bed. — Wayfarer

:smile:

The mold, in this case, is your idiosyncratic 'enformationism'. — Wayfarer

Excerpts from Gnomon post :
"PS___ Yes, I continue to harp-on my [idiosyncratic]*1 Information-based thesis."

"Bitbol argues against the view that conscious experience derives from a material basis."
Do you deny that interpretation of his position?*2*3 :cool:


*1.Idiosyncratic describes a unique, peculiar, or highly individual habit, mannerism, or characteristic that sets a person or thing apart from the norm.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idiosyncratic
Note --- The "norm" in this case is scientific Materialism.

*2. Michel Bitbol argues against the materialist view that consciousness is an emergent property or byproduct of the brain, proposing instead that conscious experience is existentially and methodologically primary. He contends that trying to derive consciousness from matter reverses the actual order of dependence, as any material, objective world is only recognized through the pre-existing field of conscious experience
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Bitbol+argues+against+the+view+that+conscious+experience+derives+from+a+material+basis

*3 Bitbol uses quantum physics to show that the "measurement problem" often brings the observer back into the picture
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Bitbol+argues+against+the+view+that+conscious+experience+derives+from+a+material+basis
Note --- my own thesis also "uses" Quantum Physics as evidence of the power of Consciousness. But it combines physical power (energy) with the metaphysical theory of Information (meaning).

the idea of a creator permitting freedom — Alexander Hine

If the creator of Genesis intended for his creatures to have freewill, he wouldn't have banished the humans from the Garden of Ideality for gaining a sense of morality (knowledge of good and evil), and for thinking for themselves (loss of innocence). But the programmer of Reality has seen fit to allow humans to exercise their morality by facing-up to ethical challenges in the Real World. :smile:

"The Programmer wrote no fixed laws. Only tendencies. Habits. Preferences. Each moment inherited the past—and added something new." — PoeticUniverse

"Humans were not the goal. But they were a breakthrough. The universe began to ask questions about itself." — PoeticUniverse

"The Programmer Poet could not force the outcome. Persuasion only. To override freedom would collapse the experiment." — PoeticUniverse

"The universe does not know its ending. Not even its maker knows. The computation is ongoing." — PoeticUniverse

"Creation did not happen once. It is happening now. And the ending depends on what consciousness decides to become." — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like we are talking about the same hypothetical Programmer. If the outcome was predetermined, why run the program?*1

Natural Laws are fundamental but not fixed : merely Constraints on Causation within freedom.

The current iteration of Self Consciousness (humanity) has too many glitches to be the final form. Who knows, maybe AI will be the next phase of Consciousness development?

As far as we know, the Cosmic computation has been running for eons, with no sign of halting or concluding.

The computation is ongoing, and the features of self-consciousness and freewill indicate that the program allows for some exceptions to top-down Determination.

Note --- I saw the "The Great Programmer" video on YouTube. :smile:


*1. The universe can be modeled as a massive quantum computer, continuously processing information through particle interactions that act as logical operations. Propagated by quantum fields, every physical interaction—from subatomic collisions to galactic movements—represents a step in a, roughly 13.8 billion-year-old, computation that evolves reality itself.
https://www.google.com/search?q=universe+as+quantum+computer&client=firefox-b-1-

The brain has an internal format or 'language' that we can readily see - or redly see, such as the quale of redness. This can only be for representing states in a way that supports: …
… I will do some research and report back. “Experience” as an extra ingredient will be shown not to be so. — PoeticUniverse

The brain's "internal language" is a set of abstractions (ideas ; qualia) filtered from objective sensory experience (400 - 480 terahertz physical vibrations) to the subjective feeling of redness (e.g warmness associated with infrared heat). The "words" are mini-models (representations) of things & events. But how does gray matter convert incoming physical data into mental images? Experience is not an "extra ingredient", but a snapshot model of external reality, to tuck away in the album of memory for future reference. That mysterious transformation/translation from concrete (foreign language) to abstract (native language) is the Hard Problem of Mind & Matter. :smile:

What form could it have, before it had form? :chin: — Wayfarer

For the purposes of this reply, I would reword that question as : What Platonic Form could Consciousness have, before it had Physical Configuration?

Bitbol argues against the view that conscious experience derives from a material basis. This, despite the evidence that all Life on Earth does have a material basis. So I assume his Primordial Consciousness is Abstract instead of Concrete, and a Verb, not a Noun, hence also pre-material. Does that make sense to you? A common pre-scientific understanding of conscious abstract entities is a disembodied Ghost : life & mind without matter. But a more modern & scientific term for abstract meaning/knowing is "Information". And 21st century science has equated Information with Energy*1. Both being abstractions without material substance*2.

So I would answer your question about the pre-physical form of Consciousness with Causation : the power to transform ; the Event before the Effect. The most familiar form of Causation today is invisible Energy, which Einstein equated with tangible Matter, albeit in the form of mathematical Mass and vector Velocity : E = MC^2. A philosophical interpretation of that equation is that Matter is slowed-down & condensed Energy*3. Hence, the existence of matter depends on pre-existent power to transform stuff : Causation.

Likewise, at the turn of the 20th century, Henri Bergson postulated an answer, related to the Consciousness question, with a Latin term for Life Energy*4. Yes. I know that the notion of "Life Energy" is taboo for Materialists. But does the equation of Information, Causation, Energy, and Consciousness make sense, in the light of Quantum Physics and Information Theory? Does Life make sense as an extension of Causation, and Mind as supervenient upon Life & Matter?

Consciousness is obviously a necessary pre-requisite for Science & Philosophy*5. But could it also be essential for physical existence? How would Bitbol answer that question? :smile:

PS___ Yes, I continue to harp-on my Information-based thesis.



*1. Mental Information and Physical Energy :
Information is not technically energy itself, but it is deeply linked to energy through physical processes. While information refers to the arrangement of matter or data, it requires energy to be created, stored, and erased, following thermodynamic laws. Recent findings, such as the Landauer principle and Maxwell's demon experiments, suggest that information and energy are interchangeable, meaning information can be converted into work.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6
Note --- See image below

*2. Energy is considered an abstract, scalar, and foundational concept in science, representing a conserved quantity rather than a tangible substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+abstract+concept

*3. The concept that matter is "slowed-down and condensed energy" is a philosophical, artistic, and simplified interpretation of physics, often linked to Einstein's [E=mc^2] equation, where matter and energy are convertible.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Matter+is+slowed-down+%26+condensed+Energy.

*4. Henri Bergson’s élan vital, or "vital impetus," is a philosophical concept introduced in his 1907 work, Creative Evolution, representing the fundamental, non-mechanical force driving all life and evolution. It is an anti-entropic, creative, and dynamic energy that drives living systems to increase in complexity and diversity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bergson+elan+vital

*5. Consciousness stands as the primary "given," enabling the subsequent understanding of the world, making it a foundational, a priori element of existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+a+priori
Note --- This concept is relevant to the Intelligibility threads.

Material conditions are anything that we can detect via the senses. Science tells us there were material conditions prior to humans.
And, as predicted you didn't answer the question I posed re whether you believe that immaterial or disembodied consciousness is possible. — Janus

The Bitbol discussion is way over my head. So, I'll limit my unsolicited contribution to questions related to the Primacy of Consciousness (OP).

The cosmological "fact" that human consciousness --- subjective experience of "material conditions" or abstract ideas --- is a latecomer in evolution, raises the question : what form did Fundamental Consciousness take "prior to humans"? If it was not Physical, was it Spiritual*1? Is "disembodied Consciousness" spiritual, as in Souls that exist before life and after death? Or was it simply Potential Platonic Form? Whatever that may be.

Is there any language we can use here that does not commit us to inherently antagonistic Materialism vs Spiritualism*2? Is there any Philosophical middle ground between Religion and Science that is appropriate for this forum? :cool:


*1. The scripture describing the Spirit moving over the water is Genesis 1:2, which states: "The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (NIV). This passage depicts the Holy Spirit in a state of brooding or active, preparatory presence during creation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spirit+moving+over+the+water+bible+verse
Note --- Would it be legitimate to describe that "preparatory" state as Potential, in a sense similar to the potential voltage of a AA battery prior to completion of a material conductive circuit?

*2. The philosophy of consciousness explores the nature, origin, and structure of subjective experience—the "what it is like" to be a conscious being. It addresses the "hard problem" of why physical brain processes produce subjective feelings (qualia). Major theories range from materialism (physicalism) to dualism and panpsychism, analyzing how mental states relate to physical reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+philosophy
Note --- The Hard Problem seems to be related to agreeing on a definition of what Consciousness is essentially (i.e. disembodied ; a priori)*3.

*3. Consciousness is regarded as a priori because it is the fundamental, self-evident foundation for all experience and knowledge, preceding empirical observation. René Descartes established that the immediate, subjective awareness of thinking ("I am conscious") cannot be doubted, making it a necessary truth independent of sensory experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+a+priori
Note --- Consciousness cannot be doubted by the aware Subject. But from an objective perspective outside the observer, C may not be so doubtless. Hence the problem of Other Minds.

When a reclusive physicist completes a Theory of Everything—an equation that unifies all forces—she discovers the formula doesn’t just describe reality. It edits it. And someone is already using it to rewrite the world. — PoeticUniverse

The physicist becomes Creator God by converting Theory (equation ; ideality) into Actuality (matter ; reality). :halo:

I think I understand your point but I'm not sure it is helpful for the discussion we were having about energy, matter and so on. BTW, Spinoza held that the Substance/God had both 'extension' (i.e. 'matter') and 'cognition' (i.e. 'mind') as attributes. Perhaps your point is that the world is a bit like that, i.e. that the physical and the mental are two aspects of the same reality? — boundless

It's not "helpful" to include Einstein's definition of Energy in a discussion of Causation??? He concluded that Energy & Matter are interchangeable via transformation : e.g. massless active photons become massive passive matter. That notion is essential to my understand of Causation (transformation from one form or state to another). Likewise, Spinoza's*1 Nature-god is the essence of both "material reality" and "mental processes".

Likewise, I think the physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) aspects of the world are different forms of the same essence : E = Reality and Ideality. That essence is Causation (action, power, ability, creation). Everything else is Effect. In my thesis, primordial EnFormAction (potential energy + intelligible design + agency) evolves into both Physical (matter) and Mental (mind) effects. :smile:

My point about the 'empirical proofs and disproofs' was something like "you can't have conclusive evidence about the topic by mere reasoning even if it is informed by empirical data". — boundless

Yes. Empirical data alone proves nothing. But by combining Evidence with Reasoning we arrive at plausible Conclusions. :wink:

I'm not sure that describing it as a 'Cause' is right, unless you mean something like a 'formal cause', i.e. (part of) what a 'physical object' is. — boundless

If "it" (energy) is not a cause, what is it? As I view "it", Energy is the Efficient Cause (force, agency), Matter is the Material Cause (substance, clay), Natural Laws are the Formal Cause (design concept), and Creation is the Final Cause (purpose, goal, teleology, effect). EnFormAction is all of the above. :nerd:


*1. Spinoza defines God as a single, infinite substance (or Nature) with infinite attributes, of which human cognition perceives only two : Extension (material reality/space) and Thought (mental processes). As a pantheistic, non-anthropomorphic entity, God expresses His essence simultaneously through these two parallel, non-interacting attributes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+god+extention+and+cognition

I can see that but I'm not sure how it is related with the discussions about energy and other physical quantities we were having. — boundless

References to Einstein are related to discussions of Energy because he re-defined the old philosophical concept of Causation in mathematical & quantitative terms, to suit 20th century physics. If you prefer to talk about Qualia related to Energy we can do that, but it will be missing a physical foundation. And my philosophical thesis begins with Quantum Physics and Information Theory. So, if you are not up to speed with those technical concepts, you may not understand the thesis. :smile:

You are free to use words as you like. But usually that phrase is understood as being about "nothingness" or "nothing apart God" (not just a reference about 'matter'). — boundless

Are you implying that I'm just "making sh*t up"? I was simply making a philosophical distinction between ex nihilo and ex materia*1. So, I'm not using words "as you like", but as previous philosophers have used them. In this case to distinguish a theological doctrine from a philosophical meaning. :nerd:

Right, that's why I don't believe one can exclude or 'prove' the existence of God (or at least many version of 'God') by purely philosophical arguments and especially by purely empirical informed philosophical arguments. — boundless

Who do you think is trying to prove or disprove the physical existence of a non-physical God? In this thread, we may discuss various god-concepts, such as Brahman. But proof of concept requires testing. And how would you test an idea, common among humans, other than by reviewing the logic in context? Would you attempt to prove the savory existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

This is a philosophy forum, with lots of non-believers. So, barring a miraculous manifestation of the deity, how else would you "exclude or prove" the existence of a metaphysical god-concept, other than by philosophical arguments? In my discussions of god-topics, I avoid theological arguments, and rely mainly on philosophical reasoning, supplemented by empirical evidence. But I make no claim to "prove" the existence of any entity outside of space-time. However, philosophical dialogs, unlike scientific discussions, are free to go beyond the physical limits of the world, to explore its metaphysical implications*2. :smile:

So at best you can IMO say that 'energy' is an essential property of 'physical objects'. But a property is still a 'property of' something and not a 'something'. — boundless

I agree. Energy is not something you can see or touch, but an invisible property or quality (essence) that is inferred from observed physical effects. Energy is not a material Object, but a metaphysical Cause. Energy is considered by physicists to be "fundamental" to the physical world*3. But they probably try to avoid words like "essence" due to its metaphysical connotations. :wink:


*1. Creatio ex nihilo : (Latin for "creation out of nothing") is the theological doctrine that God created the universe, including all matter and physical laws, from absolute non-existence, rather than shaping pre-existing material. It emphasizes divine omnipotence and a distinct separation between the Creator and the created, as opposed to creatio ex materia (creation from pre-existing matter).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ex+nihilo+nothing+material

*2. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being, often exploring questions beyond the physical world. It covers topics like the existence of God, free will, time, and the mind-matter relationship, functioning as a foundational, "first philosophy".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysics+philosophy

*3a. Energy is considered fundamental because it is the foundational currency of the universe, representing the inherent capacity to create change, motion, and structure. It is essential because it is conserved—never created or destroyed, only transformed—and drives all physical, biological, and economic processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+energy+fundamental
Note --- Causation is the ability to "create change". So, Energy is the because of all physical evolution in the world.
*3b. Yes, a cause can be considered a "thing" in a broad sense, generally defined as a person, object, event, state, or action that produces an effect. It is the agent, force, or condition responsible for an outcome.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+a+cause+a+thing&zx=1771352741796&no_sw_cr=1

Then how can the non-material (information) give rise to the material ? Are you saying that it doesn’t and all we are is information tricked into believing that we are physical ? — kindred

That is the question that my thesis attempts to answer*1. Yet it goes on to describe how the power to enform can evolve the Mental aspects of the Material world. The form of Information that I call EnFormAction is best known as Causal Energy, but it also gives rise to malleable Matter*2, and to intelligent Mind : a biological-based information processor.

However, I'm not a scientist, just an amateur philosopher. So, I have no credentials or authority to sway you. You'll have to connect the dots for yourself. Do you have the interest or patience to scan a 5 page summary? If you are confused by quirky Quantum physics, and post-Shannon Information theory, the reasoning & references may be difficult to follow.

Some people have concluded that Reality is indeed an Illusion. But I prefer to say that your Reality is an interpretation of physical evidence : a mental model. Some interpret their experience of the world in terms of Physicalism/Materialism, while others base their world-model on Spiritualism. I have built my model on the theory of Enformationism*1 : Information (power to create intelligible forms) is fundamental to reality. What are the implications of that notion for our modern understanding of the world? :nerd:


*1. Introduction to Enformationism
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

*2. Energy gives rise to matter primarily through the conversion of high-intensity energy (such as photons or kinetic energy) into mass, as described by Albert Einstein’s equation. When immense energy is concentrated into a tiny volume, it can solidify into particle-antiparticle pairs (like electrons and positrons), a process observed in particle accelerators and high-energy collisions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+does+energy+give+rise+to+matter

If I understand correctly you’re saying that information is the fundamental aspect of reality. Yet this faces an issue of where and how this information be stored in a universe devoid of material or even energy. If you are claiming that it is more fundamental than energy/matter then you must provide ontological grounds for its existence. As far as I understand information must be stored in a medium such as matter or energy. If energy is fundamental and prior to matter/energy then what is it and how can it be stored in a non physical medium, especially if information gave rise to matter/energy in terms of potential. — kindred

I'm not the one saying that Information is fundamental. It's the scientists I quote that say it. You can read their books to get the details. For example, MIT professor Seth Lloyd : Programming the Universe, The Information Edge: Creation and Destruction in Life.

Metaphysical Information doesn't exist in the same sense that Matter does. So the only "Ontological Grounds" for its existence are rational. Quantum information scientist, Seth Lloyd, doesn't have a laboratory with spectrometers & patch-clamp amplifiers. His lab is more like a think tank.

Your question about how information is stored seems to assume it's a material substance. But it's more like mathematics. Can you store Math in a box or bottle? Seth Lloyd has concluded that the Universe is a Quantum Computer*2. Do you know how information is stored in a physical computer or the human brain? It's stored as ratios between 1 & 0, or as differences (yes/no) and represented in computers by positive or negative electrical voltages. Energy can be stored in a physical medium, but Information is more fundamental (essential) than that. It can be stored in a Mind as an idea or memory. :smile:


*1. Information is increasingly considered a fundamental, nonmaterial entity—sometimes termed the "ontological basement" of reality — comparable to matter and energy. It is defined as the basic, underlying structure (or bits) that defines the state of a system, suggests that the universe functions as a processor of information, and may even explain phenomena like dark matter and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+fundamental

*2. The universe can be modeled as a giant quantum computer, wherein every particle interaction, from fundamental particle collisions to cosmological evolution, acts as a calculation, processing information rather than just exchanging energy. This computational, digital-physical approach suggests that physical laws act as the code and the universe is constantly updating its own state.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+as+quantum+computer

Yes, Einstein's wasn't the 'regular materialist atheist' but quite close to Spinoza. But this has nothing to do with what we were discussing. — boundless

I think Einstein's philosophical openness to non-religious-God-concepts does have something to do with the OP. :smile:

Note that also various Christian theologians accept the notion of 'ex nihilo nihil fit', i — boundless

My use of ex nihilo means "nothing material". Some versions of creation say that God made the universe out of Her own metaphysical stuff. And I have a theory about what that immaterial "stuff" might be. :wink:

I honestly find this whole debate meaningless. God's existence could also be compatible with a 'multiverse' if one accepts a 'starting point' for the multiverse or if one interprets the ontological primacy of God in logical rather than temporal terms. — boundless

Philosophical debates typically hinge on the subjective meaning of some notion. I agree that a creator God should be able to produce an infinity of worlds. But our local universe is the only one we have physical evidence for. And the Cosmos is both Logical and Temporal. :grin:

Elecrtomagnetic radiation [photons] is a container of energy.
IMO photons are carriers/containers of energy and not just 'energy'. — boundless

EM is not a material "container" of energy ; it is Energy. A photon is a measure (quantum) of energy. Metaphorically, it's like a gallon bottle of water that is made of water. :joke:

I never understood why so many physicists decided to restrict 'matter' as indicating objects with 'nonzero rest mass'. This is a rather arbitrary distinction. — boundless

No, it's a scientific distinction. It's the key factor that differentiates Matter from Energy. And yet, it's a spectrum with Energy on one end, Mass in the middle, and Matter on the heavy end. It's a distinction like giving different names to the colors of a rainbow : a continuum of wavelengths & frequencies. :cool:

All the theist has to demonstrate in this instance is that intentionality can’t be explained by physicalism or naturalism (not materialism per say).

And remember that the famous atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel presents arguments similar to Hart. — Tom Storm

That sounds like proving a negative. I suppose a theist is more likely to point to (demonstrate) the absence of physical evidence for mental phenomena in matter --- other than animated matter, which raises the question of how Life & Mind emerged from physical/material evolution. Of course there are philosophical theories*1 on the topic, for whatever that's worth. Like Deacon's conjecture, my own thesis is based on scientific evidence, but also on philosophical interpretation.

Thomas Nagel*2 has said that he hopes there is no God. But I assume he's referring to the intervening God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. Yet ironically, his "intelligibility" and "nonpurposive teleology" seem to point toward some ultimate intentional cause --- structured by whom? --- of physical existence and directional evolution. :smile:


*1. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon that explains how life, consciousness, and meaning arise from the physical world, arguing that "absences" or constraints are key to complex systems. The book synthesizes philosophy, biosemiotics, and neuroscience to propose that purpose and subjectivity emerge from "teleodynamic" processes, where one system's dissipation drives another's, creating aim-directed, self-organizing dynamics. It's a dense, ambitious work that bridges the gap between physics and the subjective experience of being human.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+mind+emerged+from+matter

*2. Thomas Nagel argues that the universe is fundamentally intelligible, meaning it is structured to be comprehensible to conscious minds, rather than a random, mindless byproduct of evolution. In Mind and Cosmos, he challenges materialist, neo-Darwinian, and theistic explanations for failing to account for how subjective consciousness, reason, and objective value arise naturally within the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=thomas+nagel+intelligibility
Note --- "Nagel, an atheist, clarifies that his argument is philosophical and not based on religious belief, though he defends the right to consider ideas like intelligent design"

theological interpretations — Gnomon

Modern physics hints that more primitive than energy are: Causal structure; Information constraints; Quantum states; Symmetry principles; Relational structure. — PoeticUniverse

180poopoo applauded your comment that physical Energy is not fundamental. But he seems to have missed the implication that meta-physical non-stuff (laws?) --- causation, constraints, states, principles, relations --- are more "primitive" than physical Energy & Matter. For him, those mental concepts are not "theological implications", because in his Immanentism, Mind & Matter are presumed to be eternally inherent in physical Nature : Pantheism.

However, his science seems to be stuck in the 17th century, when Spinoza's hypothetical axiom-assumption of a self-existent eternally-cycling material world/god made sense to those who rejected the authority of ancient scripture. I wonder what Baruch would think of the cosmological Big Bang theory*1.

The "world god" described below is compatible with my worldview, except that there is no physical evidence for a material multiverse. And "absolute determinism" does not fit into post-quantum physics. Even the 21st century semi-theologies of Pantheism and Panpsychism seem to presume eternal cycles of birth-life-death instead of a unique linear creation*2. Does the world-god have a mind of her own, or just a few highly-evolved apes? :smile:


*1. Spinoza would likely interpret the Big Bang not as a creation from nothing, but as a specific, necessary event within an eternal, pantheistic universe (God or Nature). While modern cosmology defines a 13.8-billion-year-old beginning, Spinoza's philosophy of absolute determinism requires an infinite chain of cause and effect, where every state follows from a previous one, making a true "temporal beginning" philosophically inconsistent with his view of God.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+opinion+of+big+bang+theory

*2. When we turned time into a line, we reimagined past and future
https://aeon.co/essays/when-we-turned-time-into-a-line-we-reimagined-past-and-future
# Greek and Roman Stoics connected time with their doctrine of ‘Eternal Recurrence’: the universe undergoes infinite cycles,ending and restarting in fire.
# However, with the work of Charles Darwin, cyclical models faded. His On the Origin ofSpecies (1859) conceives of evolution in linear terms.
# Darwinian evolution was portrayed not as a many-branched tree, but as an arrow.
. . . . .the book bluntly states that life forms ‘tend to progress towards perfection’.
# Note : Einstein added two new depictions of Time : 4D Space-Time and static Block Time.
Those who deny progress in evolution may be thinking in terms of Cyclic Time or BlockTime. But many of us in the middle of space-time imagine it like Darwin, as “progress toward perfection", or from Big Bang birth to entropic heat death.

David Bentley Hart) argue that the intelligibility of the universe requires more than a naturalistic explanation. — Tom Storm

I can't help you with Hart's reasoning*1, except to note that it is based on theology, and argues against Naturalism/Materialism. If you are committed to Materialism, his arguments won't make sense. However, my own philosophical solution to the Life & Mind mystery is completely natural, and evolutionary, given the axiom of a Big Bang beginning of unknown provenance. If you don't accept the BB theory or Evolutionary theory, it won't make sense. My thesis even has a role for Quantum randomness, that Hart argues against. :smile:


*1. David Bentley Hart argues that the universe’s intelligibility—the, “fitting” of the human mind to grasp rational, mathematical, and logical structures in nature — cannot be explained by, naturalistic materialism. He contends that because mind and matter are intrinsically linked, a purely mechanical, chance-driven universe cannot account for the conscious, truth-seeking ability of human reason. Hart proposes that the world is inherently teleological and meaningful, pointing toward a divine, intelligent source rather than, brute, unconscious material causes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=David+Bentley+Hart%29+argue+that+the+intelligibility+of+the+universe+requires+more+than+a+naturalistic+explanation.

Sure I would be interested to hear how and why the eventual emergence of intelligence occurred. — kindred

If you are really interested in an amateur philosopher's opinion of the natural evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, you could start with the original Enformationism Thesis. However, the Introduction to Enformationism blog post*1 might get you up to speed quicker, with somewhat less technical stuff. It's based on Quantum Physics and Information Theory, but from a philosophical perspective, which does not accept ancient Materialism as a modern post-quantum worldview.

Yet, it does apply Plato's ancient notion of Form as a precursor of the 21st century understanding of both Energy and Information*2. Also, it takes, as an axiom, that Aristotle's hypothetical First Cause initiated the Big Bang, with its otherwise inexplicable cosmic scale Energy (exceptionally low Entropy*3) and Natural Laws (limitations on the application of energy).

Be warned though, "The Enformationism thesis alone will not solve all the conundrums and contradictions of modern Science. But it may point in a new direction, toward a future solution". If, after 5 pages, you are mystified*4 by the unfamiliar theoretical & empirical concepts, please click on the last page popup : Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis. :smile:



*1. Introduction to Enformationism
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

*2. I emphasize the term “Information” in order to show that ultimately, Mind consists of essentially the same kind of stuff as Matter. Therefore, it should no longer be considered a mystery or miracle that consciousness could arise from material substrates.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page81.html
Note --- That "stuff" is not tangible Matter, but invisible Energy as indicated by Einstein's equation :
[E=MC^2] where M is a mathematical measure of Mass (inertia), and C is the speed of light. The combination of M & C is what we call Matter : a slowed-down & condensed form of Energy.

*3. The universe began with exceptionally low entropy because matter was distributed with extreme uniformity, allowing for massive future increases in gravitational clumping (forming stars and black holes). This initial, highly ordered "smooth" state is considered an exceptionally rare starting condition, likely linked to rapid post-Big Bang expansion or, according to some theories, the result of pinching off from a larger, higher-entropy parent universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+did+the+universe+start+with+low+entropy&zx=1771188297986&no_sw_cr=1
Note --- The notion of a "parent universe" (eternal multiverse) is not based on evidence, but on a desire to defend Materialism, and to avoid any supernatural implications.

*4.Since this an amateur philosophical thesis, it’s not censored by academic oversight, or professionally committed to current mainstream dogmas of modern Science. So, it freely adopts some metaphysical ideas that may sound like Eastern or New Age Mysticism. For the record though, the thesis does not espouse any Magical or Psychic phenomena.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html
Note --- Metaphysics is the study of non-physical aspects of reality, such as Ideas & Theories. Brains are physical, but Minds are meta-physical.

All I did was ask the question, "How do we know...? why would you jump straight to me being not OK with something? — Tom Storm

I apologize, if you were offended by my interpretation of your OP : that you are not comfortable (OK) with the postulated explanations --- supernaturalistic or naturalistic --- for the Intelligibility of the universe : "I’d like to better understand the argument that intelligibility cannot arise through purely naturalistic processes"*1. Personally, I think the ability to infer the Laws & Logic of Nature did indeed evolve naturally by means of evolutionary progress. But if you think evolution is not progressive, then human intelligence will remain a mystery.

If you reject Pre-modern (religious) views on such questions, and Modern (scientific) views don't sufficiently address the issue, then perhaps you have become unsettled by Post-modern critical analysis of both religion and science. Postmodernism "critiques the certainty of objective truth, universal reason, and the "grand narratives" of modernity". As I understand it, the point of postmodernism is to unsettle certainty : to be "not OK". And 20th century Quantum Physics did that in spades.

Nevertheless, I have developed my own theory of how a seemingly "mindless" Big Bang beginning could naturalistically evolve intelligent beings, who ask how & why questions, from nothing but a> Energy (low entropy) and b> Natural Laws (regulations & limitations on energy) and c> Chance (quantum randomness). But it's a long & complex story, not suitable for a forum post. That's why I put it in the form of an initial Thesis and expansion in an online blog. :smile:


*1. The claim that "intelligibility cannot arise through purely naturalistic processes"is
a central argument in philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and theology, often used to challenge physicalism (the view that all things are physical). This perspective argues that the rational, logical, and meaningful structure of the universe implies an intelligent source rather than blind, random chance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+intelligibility+cannot+arise+through+purely+naturalistic+processes.

We can not truly know the nature of such a being which is intelligent and having always existed so for now it remains an ontological mystery. — kindred

The Bible claims to have solved the mystery of existence in the myth of Genesis, along with direct revelations to humans over the subsequent centuries. And mystics claim to "know" that supernatural being personally. Yet, I don't accept the authority of the Catholic Bible, compiled 3 centuries after the death of Jesus. So, the ultimate Cause of the eventual emergence of Intelligence remains an "ontological mystery" to me. But I have my philosophical theories. :smile:

Again, one should be careful to not attribute quotes to Einstein or other figures — boundless

I am careful about quotes from any authority figure, because people will interpret the words in the context of their own beliefs. . . . and that includes Materialist interpretations of Einstein's "god" quotes*1. :wink:

the theory of Big Bang 'proves God' — boundless

I don't think the BB proves the Christian God. And I don't buy the New Age interpretations. But, I have to agree with those who say it does look exactly like a creation ex nihilo*1 event. So, anti-Christians have postulated a variety of creative counter-interpretations of the astronomical evidence, to "prove" hypothetically (without evidence) that our physical universe could have always existed, and had the potential for creation of New Worlds : e.g. Multiverse theory. :chin:

David Bohm, who wasn't certainly the stereotypical 'materialist', never accepted a probabilistic interpretation of QM, — boundless

Yes. But his attempts to make Quantum Physics seem more deterministic --- by postulating hidden variables and intelligent pilot waves --- have not convinced many of his fellow physicists. And after many years, no evidence for occult determinants. However, interest in Bohm's work has experienced a revival in recent decades. And my thesis acknowledges some of his less radical ideas. :meh:

This is better. If, however, energy is 'contained' in matter, you have to ask yoursef: can energy exist without a 'container'? If not, energy isn't more fundamental than matter. — boundless

You need to be careful about asking questions that may not have the answer you expect.*4 :joke:

Energy (or even the more comprehensive quantities like the four-momentum etc) is always defined as a property of something else and not an independent entity on its own. — boundless

It was Einstein who defined Energy as "fundamental"*5. And photons are massless, hence matterless*6. :nerd:
Note --- If you click on the blue addresses below, you will find links to the sources of the summaries.


*1. Albert Einstein held a "cosmic religion" view, rejecting a personal, anthropomorphic God in favor of a pantheistic, orderly universe. He admired Spinoza's God—the harmony and beauty of natural law—believing science and spirituality were complementary, non-dogmatic, and interconnected. He often expressed awe for the mysterious and felt humanity's purpose was to understand this cosmic, lawful order. (Wikipedia)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einsteins+new+age+views

*2. Creatio ex nihilo remains a foundational, concept that bridges scientific, observations of a beginning with, theological interpretations of, a creator, while, quantum cosmology attempts to provide, physical, explanations for how such, an, event could, occur.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+creation+ex+nihilo
The Big Bang theory suggests the universe had a definitive beginning roughly 13.8 billion years ago, where space, time, matter, and energy originated from an extremely hot, dense state, superficially resembling creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+looks+like+creation+ex+nihilo

*3. Beyond Simple Materialism: Bohm’s philosophical views were not straightforward, notes PhilSci-Archive. He was, in fact, not a "Bohmain" in the modern, strict sense, as he later moved away from strict determinism to argue that both causality and chance are fundamental.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=David+Bohm%2C+who+wasn%27t+certainly+the+stereotypical+%27materialist%27%2C+never+accepted+a+probabilistic+interpretation+of+QM%2C

*4. Yes, energy can exist without a physical, material "container."
Electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves) travels through empty space without needing a container. Furthermore, energy exists in vacuum fields, and gravitational fields can contain pressure (like in stars) without a physical barrier.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+can+energy+exist+without+a+%27container%27%3F

*5. Energy is generally not considered independent of matter, as they are fundamentally linked, but energy can exist without massive matter. Energy is a property of physical systems, such as fields and particles (photons), which can travel through empty space, while matter is defined as substances with mass. The relationship is best understood via [E=MC^2], showing energy and mass are equivalent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+independent+of+matter

*6.Einstein's [E=MC^2] reveals that energy is more fundamental than matter, as matter is effectively a highly condensed form of energy. Energy can exist without mass (e.g., photons), but all mass has an inherent energy equivalent. Matter can be converted into pure energy (as in the sun), and energy can create particles, making energy the foundational "stuff".
https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+energy+more+fundamental+than+matter&client=firefox-b-1-

Energy is: Fundamental within physics; Universal across phenomena; Conserved because of symmetry. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Energy must be conserved because the Big Bang provided the universe with a limited supply, that cannot be created or destroyed within the bubble of physical reality : only recycled. :nerd:

Perhaps, the recent insistence on seeing 'energy' as a sort of metaphysical 'entity' that somehow is foundational of 'reality' is due to what, in my opinion, is a misinterpretation of Einstein's mass-equivalence that rests on a further misinterpretation of what 'mass' is. — boundless

I get the impression that philosophers who hold a Materialist worldview, prefer the black & white Certainty of the ancient (6th century BC) notion of Atomism (fundamental particles of matter) to the fuzzy gray Uncertainty of the 20th century view of Quantum Physics : that intangible Math (fields) and invisible Energy (forces) are more fundamental than quotidian Matter*1*2*3. What Mass is, is a mathematical measurement of the Energy content of Matter. It can be expressed in terms of Newtons of Force, as in the atomic bomb.

I guess you could say that my uncertain view is post-materialist & post-quantum & post-modern (i.e. 21st century). To each his own : preferences, personal taste, and opinions. Below are some physicist's (not philosophers) opinions. :joke:



*1. Einstein's assertion that energy is fundamental stems from his 1905 formula, \(E=mc^{2}\), which established that mass and energy are interchangeable manifestations of the same entity. This principle dictates that matter is essentially "frozen" or highly concentrated energy, making energy the foundational component of the physical universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Einstein+energy+is+fundamental
Note --- That universal "entity", underlying matter/energy, is sometimes equated with the boundless Higgs Field.

*2. Before the equation, scientists treated mass and energy as separate and distinct properties. The equation revolves around the theory of mass-energy equivalence
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/einstein-formula.htm

*3. Mass is considered both a foundational physical quantity (measuring inertia and resistance to motion) and a complex metaphysical concept, rooted in historical debates about substance, extension, and the nature of matter. It bridges physics, via intrinsic properties like the Higgs mechanism, and metaphysics, which explores the ontological status of "stuff" and its properties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mass+is+a+metaphysical+concept

I saw that quote as part of a larger quote attributed to Einstein that clearly doesn't seem to be genuine. — boundless

Yes, the "quote" is an attribution, and probably a paraphrase of several opinions in Einstein's writings*1. If it doesn't agree with your personal worldview, you can ignore it. I linked to the "quote" to illustrate my own understanding of the role of Energy in the world. Specifically, that everything you see & touch, and interpret as Real is made of invisible intangible Energy*2. :smile:

PS___ Years ago, without knowledge of that specific quote, my Enformationism thesis concluded that Matter is slowed-down Energy, and that Energy is the carrier of Information. Does that make any sense to you?


*1. The popular quote, “Everything is energy and that's all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. This is not philosophy. This is physics,” is widely attributed to Albert Einstein. It highlights the idea that aligning with a specific energy frequency directly influences one's reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=everything+is+energy+quote

*2. However, the quote appears to be a popular New Age or metaphysical paraphrase rather than a documented, direct quote from his writings. . . .
While not saying that exact quote, Einstein did express, "What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses ".
https://www.google.com/search?q=everything+is+energy+quote+source&client=firefox-b-1-

No.
How do we know that what we call reality and math’s aren’t simply the contingent products of cognition, culture and language. In other words the patterns and regularities are in how we see not what we see. There are significant philosophers who hold this in post modernism and phenomenology. And no doubt there are other explanations we haven’t thought of. — Tom Storm

So you are not OK with metaphorical philosophical answers to the Intelligibility question on a philosophy forum? Do you think Math (logic), and other nonphysical aspects of the Cosmos, is not Real, simply because we can't see or touch it? If so, then it's Ideal, and physical science will not answer your question.

"the patterns and regularities are in how we see not what we see".
I doubt you would be asking the OP question if you were satisfied with empirical science's physical mechanical description of how we see*1 (rods & cones, etc). Are you aware of a scientific analysis of the "contingencies"*2 in how the human mind cognitively interprets "patterns & regularities in the environment? Ironically, I think you are asking a philosophical question, but denying the validity of philosophical methods. :smile:


*1. Philosophy explores how we see through theories of perception, debating whether we directly experience reality or construct it mentally. It distinguishes between raw sensory input (2D colors/shapes) and interpreted perception, shaped by experience, context, and "seeing as" (cognitive interpretation). Key views include direct realism (seeing reality itself), indirect realism (seeing mental representations), and the role of action/movement in building a 3D world
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+how+we+see

*2. Contingent products of cognition, culture, and language refer to mental habits, behaviors, and knowledge systems that are not universal, but rather arise from specific, interconnected developmental, social, and environmental contexts. Culture and language act as "cognitive tools" that restructure the mind (cognitive retooling), creating unique cognitive phenotypes in different populations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=contingent+products+of+cognition%2C+culture+and+language&zx=1771088983923&no_sw_cr=1

Those sympathetic to this position suggest that this is a metaphysical, not merely empirical, problem. If minds and meanings arise from purely blind physical processes aimed at survival rather than truth, then the fact that our thoughts reliably refer to the world and track its structure appears contingent or unexplained. Naturalism can describe how cognition functions, but it seems less able to explain why cognition should be about reality at all, rather than merely useful for navigating experience. — Tom Storm

I think you have answered your own question. The intelligibility of reality, and the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics (Wigner), are not scientific questions. So we should not expect naturalistic answers. Also, any philosophical answers postulated will be limited to metaphysical and metaphorical conjectures. Are you OK with that? :wink:

What do others think about the notion of intelligibility? Does the apparent fit between human reason and the world require grounding in some kind of greater mind or God, or is intelligibility better understood as a feature of human interpretation rather than of reality itself? No doubt there are other options. — Tom Storm

Since the worldviews of Materialism (random & meaningless) and Spiritualism (purposeful & worshipful) are radically opposed, perhaps a perspective somewhere in-between can offer a different interpretation of the evidence. On another thread we have been discussing various aspects of Cosmos and Consciousness.

There, we learned that the names we use to label the subject of investigation may put limits on what we expect to learn. For example, if a scientist refers to the physical World as "Universe", it's simply what exists within our sphere of perception : no before or after, just what-is physically. But, if a philosopher calls the subject of inquiry "Cosmos"*1, its properties go beyond physical & material to include metaphysical qualia of Order, Structure, Harmony, and Meaning. Both views assume rational Intelligibility, but the latter implies, not just comprehensibility, but also personal feelings & meanings.

Although Plato refrained from picturing the metaphysical Logos*1 & Cosmos2 in humanoid terms, most religions of the world have personified the abstract Universal-powers-that-be in metaphors based on their experience with flesh & blood rulers over men. And based on their encounters with mercurial kings and punishing potentates, people assumed that the overlords above --- thundering weather gods and savage war gods --- were to be feared & worshiped & obeyed without question.

On the other hand, pragmatic scientists approached the physical Universe objectively as a resource to be exploited for the purposes of ordinary people. But a middle-ground philosophical approach to understanding the complexities & contradictions of the world-system views it more as a puzzle to be solved, or at least understood figuratively and non-literally.

Therefore, maybe Plato answered the "Intelligibility" question by choosing names that inherently imply accessibility to intelligence, but not to the physical senses. Logos & Cosmos don't inspire fear & trembling in the rational subjects of cosmic power. :smile:



*1. In Plato’s philosophy, Logos generally refers to divine reason, rational discourse, or the structural principle of the soul and cosmos. It represents the logical, cognitive part of the soul that directs behavior, and in a broader sense, it acts as the intelligible pattern or account that defines true knowledge, often contrasting with mere opinion.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+logos

*1. In Greek mythology and philosophy, Kosmos (or Cosmos) refers to the universe as an orderly, harmonious system, the opposite of Chaos, representing the structured world of the gods, humans, and natural laws, rather than a specific deity,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=greek+%22cosmos%22

The alternative is that intelligent life has no prior precedent and is in fact the first time it has emerged in the world. I find this difficult to accept because it would in fact be easier to posit a pre-existing intelligence (divine) from which the current one sprang from. — kindred

Most Philosophers are somewhat argumentative, and don't readily accept "easy" answers, such as "God did it". They may then ask, where did this magical God come from? And the "easy" answer is that Gods, by definition, are self-existent and meta-physical, with no need for gradual evolution from lifeless stuff to living beings. Believe it, or not!

However, once an entity has achieved on-going existence (Life), it's assumed to be on the long & winding path to increasing Intelligence (Mind). For example, Materialism presumes that the random jostling of atoms, over some large fraction of Infinity, will inevitably stumble across the formula for Life, and then Mind. But, that's an audacious speculation, based on nothing but wishful thinking. It attributes the Potential for Life & Mind to mundane Matter, without offering evidence, other than the "easy" observation that all life in this world is matter-based.

So, for "hard" thinkers, a cogent & consistent path from Nothing to Being is required to provide a foundation for further speculation. In other words, we need to know the, logical if not physical, steps from non-life to biology. Including the "prior precedent" for Life & Mind (e.g. Intelligent Agents, if any) that might explain the time-bound existence of our physical Reality. So, traditionally, Gods are defined as existing in some state of Ideality (an imaginary or spiritual state of being). Even details of inherent Potential for animation of matter, remain unexplained and undefined.

Throughout history though, to provide that foundation for understanding the mysteries of the real world, almost all human cultures have developed some notion of a powerful-but-invisible autonomous Being that serves as an explanation for the question : why is there something instead of nothing : i.e. creation of our visible world. You can call that theory : Cosmogenesis*1. The Torah contains the familiar easy answer of Genesis, where our world, complete with energy, matter and living creatures, was created in a single work week by divine fiat : "let there be light" and everything else necessary for a functioning cosmos.

Of course, that's Magic, and offers no scientific or philosophical reasons for being, except the inscrutable Will of God. Even pseudoscience theories of Panspermia, omit the details for Cosmogenesis, and just assume that our material world is, like the gods, self-existent. Hence, life on Earth is just an accident of seed-sowing from one habitat to another. So, if you want to limit this discussion to the physically existing Real world and empirical evidence --- as the thread title indicates --- you'll need to develop some scientific theory of Abiogenesis*2. But, If you are willing to just take Cosmogenesis for granted --- no knowable First Cause --- there is no need to deal with the fraught theories of "pre-existing intelligence (divine)". :smile:



*1. Cosmogenesis refers to the origin, creation, or development of the universe, often exploring the intersection of scientific, philosophical, and spiritual perspectives on its expansion.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cosmogenesis

*2. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life originated from non-living, inorganic matter through natural chemical processes on early Earth, approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. It proposes a gradual, multi-step transition from simple organic compounds to complex self-replicating molecules and, ultimately, the first cells, rather than a single, spontaneous event.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=abiogenesis+theory
Note --- The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 showed that some precursors for life (e.g. amino acids) could be produced from specially-selected inorganic materials zapped with energy. But the actual transition from non-life to life has not been observed experimentally in the 74 years since then. Moreover, there are no known precursors for Cosmos from Chaos. Therefore, the original Emergence of the evolving world remains an open (philosophical) question.

Slower than a vacuum-tube computer! Slower than an abacus! Much slower than molasses! Mind-numbingly slow! Way slower than getting stuck walking behind old people in Florida! A universe quantum computer could do it in an instant! — PoeticUniverse

The universe could do what, in an instant? Produce a world with living & thinking creatures? That sounds like Genesis creation by fiat. Apparently, you are assuming that the Cosmic computer was initiated by an anthro-morphic human-style intellect, with a snap of the magician's fingers : Voila! Instant ant farm, for kids to watch instinctive behavior at work. Philosophical ants though, questioning every step, would make a mess of the orderly regimented ant community.

However, it's obvious to us in the 21st century, in light of the Big Bang theory, that the universe has been evolving for billions of Earth years. From nothing but Energy & Laws to stars & solar systems, and eventually to cities & social systems. So, scientists & philosophers need to work with the plodding evidence they have. And it does not align with the Genesis account of creation. This brave new world seems to be expanding into infinity, so space & time are evolving along with matter & energy.

Creation by calculation may seem slow to you, but what-if if the Programmer exists outside space-time? Since Eternity & Infinity are nothing to us but mathematical crutches, perhaps we should take a more poetic perspective, instead of scientific/materialistic/deterministic. As psychedelic poet William Blake wrote in the 17th century :
"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."
"To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wildflower, / Hold infinity in the palm of your hand / And eternity in an hour".

If you want a less poetic, more scientific theory of the World's Creation, perhaps the perspective of a computer creator*1 would shed some light on the topic. Although I've never had a "spiritual experience", Faggin's notion of a "conscious quantum information network" could suggest a different approach to the necessity (constraints) of space & time for world-building. Yes, like Blake, his worldview is somewhat mystical, but his terminology is 21st century technical.

His assumption seems to be that Becoming was more important to The One (my Programmer), than just Being. Perhaps The One's imaginary ant farm is our existential Reality. Again, it's the experiential Process, not the final material Product, that the Program is computing. A.N. Whitehead was a physicist, not a pastor or poet. But his worldview was dynamic, and on-going, not static & ending at the beginning*2. So, I suppose his advice would be to relax, don't worry about time passing into the dead Past. Just go with the flow --- Wu Wei in Taoism. There is no Heaven or Hell, except as a man thinketh. There is just "creative temporal becoming". :smile:


*1. Federico Faggin, the physicist and inventor of the first microprocessor, proposes that consciousness, not matter, is the fundamental essence of reality. Moving beyond materialist views after a profound 1990 spiritual experience, he suggests the universe is a living, conscious quantum information network.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=federico+faggin+creation+of+the+world

*2. A.N. Whitehead’s process philosophy defines reality not as a collection of static material substances, but as a dynamic, interconnected web of "actual entities" (or "actual occasions") constantly in flux. Process is the creative, temporal "becoming" or "concrescence" of these occasions, where past experiences are integrated into a new, unique moment of experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=A.N.+Whitehead%27s+Process+definition

From The Pyramid of Being : "we seek the how, yet ignore the why.?

The Universe looks constrained—so tightly that only coherence can survive. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! But does that tight "constraint" and "coherence" look like a random accident? On a firing range, a tight grouping of shots is taken to indicate accurate aim (intention).

Of course, as 180poopoo likes to remind us, Entropy is the destroyer of constrained order. But it's also the executor of Natural Selection as it removes "unfit" entities from the program of Evolution. The decision-making If-Then code of Nature specifies : If-Not, then skip that result and go-on to the next item to test for fitness. But fit for what? It's a teleological question, that Darwin struggled with.

The Entropy argument also conveniently ignores the anti-entropy forces (Negentropy)*1 of evolution that I like to call positive Enformy. The eventual emergence of creatures that can ask "Why?" questions proves that the program of Evolution can create order within Chaos*2, despite the culling function of Entropy.

Issue 171 of Philosophy Now magazine has an article on The Philosophy of William Blake. It begins : "Evolutionary ideas were in the air, and empiricism was one of the watchwords of the times". Despite that humanistic & materialistic trend, Blake --- poet and artist, but not a scientist --- had a more positive, even romantic, vision of Evolution*3. Personally, I'm neither romantic nor mystical, but I am rational enough to see order-within-chaos.

The PN article says, of Blake's contemporary, that "Hume concluded therefore that scientific knowledge rests on an act of faith". It also quotes Isaac Newton : "You speak of gravity as being essential & inherent in matter, pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for ye cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know". Within the general expansion of the physical universe, gravity acts as an organizing force, to contract the elements of Nature into organized systems, such as that of Sol, with its life-bearing planet in the habitable zone amidst the inhospitable emptiness of space. Was that constrained coherence, or random accident? :nerd:

PS___"Ye Cause" of a constrained coherent computer universe is what I do not pretend to know. But I'm pretty sure it's not the Jehovah of Genesis.

All that we know so far about what took a very long slow time because it's not a computer is: — PoeticUniverse

Quantum Information scientist Seth Lloyd, among others, has concluded from the same evidence that the Cosmos is very much like a computer*4. :cool:


*1. Negentropy, or negative entropy, is a measure of order, organization, and complexity that acts as the opposite of entropy (chaos and disorder).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=negentropy

*2.In science, order within chaos, often explored via Chaos Theory, refers to the discovery of underlying patterns, structures, and predictability within systems that appear random and complex. Rather than pure disorder, chaotic systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions—the "butterfly effect"—yet they follow deterministic, yet non-linear, paths that can form complex, organized structures
https://www.google.com/search?q=order+within+Chaos+science&client=firefox-b-1-

*3. William Blake :
"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."
"To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wildflower, / Hold infinity in the palm of your hand / And eternity in an hour".

*4. The universe can be modeled as a giant evolving quantum computer that processes information through particle interactions, where each physical event acts as a logical operation. This computational universe hypothesis suggests that the, cosmos, via quantum entanglement and superposition, computes its own, dynamical evolution, with, qubits, and quantum, error correction, potentially, underpinning the very structure of, spacetime
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+as+quantum+computer

Asking for a programmer assumes intention precedes existence, purpose precedes structure, and meaning precedes consistency, but what we know points to the opposite: consistency precedes existence, existence precedes meaning, and meaning is made locally, afterward. — PoeticUniverse

I'm not asking for a creator. I'm inferring a programmer. That's because natural evolution seems to be processing*1 information, and proceeding step by step (phase transitions) in an algorithmic manner similar to a computer program*2. And the Programmer is just a metaphor, for the unknown organizer of infinite possibilities. This is a philosophical notion --- similar to Aristotle's First Cause, or Hindu Brahman --- not a religious belief. Operating with an internal program --- like a guided missile --- the universe has no need for an intervening deity.

I do conclude that "intention precedes existence". Without a teleological program --- constraining natural laws --- the Big Bang would have instantly fizzled-out like New Year fireworks. Instead, the ex nihilo fireball has evolved, despite Entropy, to the point where it has produced Living & Thinking creatures. If that's not Progress*3, it's certainly not blundering accident. Where were the seeds of Life & Mind in the singularity (initial conditions ; program) of the Bang? I imagine the Singularity as the mathematical code for a space-time living universe, that was activated by the Bang (execute program).

Physical "existence precedes meaning" is true for the physical universe. First, physical existence emerges from an unknown source, then gradually evolves into creatures that can process Raw Information into Meaning. Now we can look back and think, what existed before the Bang*4 --- before the boundaries of space & time were imposed on infinite Potential? But, Metaphysical Mathematics is not constrained by space or time or entropy. It may be what Plato called Logos (pure logic). :nerd:


*1a. "Process philosophy is often compared to substance metaphysics, which is the dominant paradigm in Western philosophy. Process philosophy differs from substance metaphysics in its focus on becoming and change, rather than the static nature of being." What it does, versus what it is?
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html
*1b. John Wheeler’s " it from bit" proposes that every physical entity ("it") derives its existence from binary, information-theoretic answers ("bits" or yes/no questions) registered by apparatus. Causation in this framework is informational, where physical, causal events (e.g., in quantum mechanics) emerge from underlying, non-physical, or pre-geometric, informational, or cognitive, choices
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=causation+and+%22it%22+from+%22bit%22

*2. Program Execution : As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progression to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note --- Natural Selection Evaluations are if-then codes

*3. Progress is the process of improving, developing, or moving forward toward a goal, representing advancement, growth, or a better state. It can be slow, steady, or occur in bursts, covering fields like science, technology, or personal development. It serves as a measure of change from a previous state to a more advanced one.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=progress
Note --- Is the blue-green Earth more advanced than the fireball stage of evolution?

*4. Before the Bang :
# The Big Bang teaches us that our expanding, cooling universe used to be younger, denser, and hotter in the past.
# However, extrapolating all the way back to a singularity leads to predictions that disagree with what we observe.
# Instead, cosmic inflation preceded and set up the Big Bang, changing our cosmic origin story forever.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/
Note --- Astrophysicist Ethan Seigel suggests that a period of Inflation (the setup) preceded the Bang, and the emergence of matter. But, what if it was a period of mathematical/logical programming instead of physical expansion of space-time, before the dimensionless Singularity exploded into space-time? I think of that setup period as the programming of Energy & Laws to propel & guide the Bang.

Yes. Information flow is not free but constrained by: Relativity → no influence outside light cones; Quantum mechanics → no-cloning, no-signaling; Thermodynamics → records cost entropy; Causality → no contradictions, no loops.

The constraints do the real work. So, causation is not “anything that happens to follow”, but is what remains possible after all constraints are applied. — PoeticUniverse

In this case, I would interpret "not free" as non-random, hence logical. I assume that, by (physical) "constraints", you mean Natural Laws*1. Those so--called Laws are not literally "observable"*2 but rationally inferable from repeated observations, and conceptual generalization from a few observations to the conclusion that they are universal principles.

Speaking of Laws : Newton assumed that the universal principles of physics were established by the Creator of the system*3 --- presumably the biblical Yahweh/Jehovah. But for those philosophers who don't accept the Catholic Bible as The Word of God, the "immaterial influence", responsible for establishing logical boundaries for our dynamic world, remains open to question.

Philosophical question : Is that logically necessary First Cause the self-caused Cosmos itself, or some eternal abstract Platonic Form or Chaos from which the Cosmos emerged? In my Information-based thesis I call that mysterious Cosmic Cause the Enformer or the Programmer. I assume you have a poem that addresses the fraught question of the implicit Law-Maker or Universal Constrainer of our time-bound limited-lifetime World. :smile:


*1. Natural laws act as fundamental constraints on causation by determining the permissible limits, rules, and boundaries within which events occur, rather than simply triggering effects. They function as top-down structural limitations—such as conservation principles—that restrict the possible trajectories or outcomes of physical systems regardless of the specific forces involved.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+laws+are+constraints+on+causation

*2. Laws of nature are fundamental, observable, and universal principles that describe how the physical world consistently operates, ranging from subatomic interactions to galactic motion. They represent established regularities—such as gravity or thermodynamics—rather than human-made rules, often expressed through scientific formula.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+are+laws+of+nature&client=firefox-b-1-

*3a. Isaac Newton viewed his laws of motion and gravity not as autonomous rules, but as evidence of a divine, intelligent Creator who actively sustained and ordered the universe
. He believed that gravity resulted from an immaterial influence, possibly God, and that divine intervention was necessary to prevent the solar system from collapsing
*3b. Isaac Newton viewed his laws of physics not as a replacement for God, but as evidence of a divine, orderly Creator. He believed God was an active, intelligent agent necessary to maintain the stability of the solar system, acting as a "celestial mechanic" who prevents the universe from falling into chaos. https://www.google.com/search?q=newton%27s+laws+of+physics+god&client=firefox-b-1-

Causality, Light, and Time — PoeticUniverse

What prompted you to create a video on such a non-mainstream Science/Philosophy topic? Do you get paid for your ad-free artistic creations? I won't ask : "by whom"? :wink:

You’re right there isn’t but nature exhibits intelligence in its design so this constitute evidence of a higher power. — kindred

Intelligent Design*1 is a touchy subject on this forum, and is often denigrated as Pseudoscience. But I prefer to label the hypothesis of a pre-Bang Creator as Idealistic Philosophy. For thousands of years, philosophers have postulated an eternal source to explain our temporal world : e.g Brahman*2. And philosophy is based not on physical evidence, but on logical consistency.

For those who infer evidence of Natural Laws, a supernatural lawmaker is a logical corollary. But some view the randomness of Entropy as evidence of "undirected natural processes". And yet, there is no scientific theory to explain how random events could accidentally produce such anti-entropy effects as Life & Mind in the time (less than infinity) allowed by cosmological evidence. That's why some thinkers reject BB theory, and propose their own eternal Multiverse theories, unsupported by empirical evidence.

So, for now, we have a stand-off between contradictory non-empirical conclusions based on abstract reasoning. Such discrepancies guide some thinkers to the perceived necessity for a direct revelation from that "higher power". Hence, we have a plethora of divine scriptures*3a, and personal communications*3b from the higher power. Clearly, the notion of Intelligent Design has a muddled history, and contradictory beliefs & practices.

I suppose that's why another kind of intelligent process has become popular, even among some secular scientists : various forms of Panpsychism*4 and Pantheism. Therefore, as a philosopher, you can take your pick-of-the-crop of "Higher Powers" to serve as your favorite creator or "designer". Those who chose one-or-the-other of these may be considered as Kindred Spirits. Consider me confused. But I do have my own private hypothesis to explain the emergence of intelligence in our little corner of the universe. :smile:



*1. Intelligent Design (ID) is the pseudoscientific concept that certain features of the universe and living things are too complex to have arisen by undirected natural processes like evolution, instead requiring an "intelligent cause," often implying a supernatural creator, though ID proponents typically avoid naming the designer,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intelligent+design

*2. Brahman is described as the unchanging "primordial reality" that creates, sustains, and ultimately withdraws the universe within itself, the final element in a dialectical process which cannot be eliminated or annihilated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

*3a. Divine scriptures are sacred texts revered as the word of God or foundational spiritual wisdom across various religions, including the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), Torah (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Quran (Islam). [you may add Book of Mormon, and many others to this short list]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=list+of+divine+scriptures
*3b. Note --- Even within each of those ancient traditions, there are off-shoot scriptures (Mormon) and Mystical practices that "prioritize direct, personal experiences of ultimate reality, inner intuition, or ecstatic visions over established religious texts or dogmas".

*4. Panpsychism is the philosophical view that consciousness, mind, or soul is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of all physical matter, rather than a unique product of complex brains.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Panpsychism