I am glad to see evidence that his reason does compel him to label his enformer, as a god of the gaps posit, and I also applaud him for that with NO MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. I am sure you mean your :clap: in the same way. — universeness

To the contrary, I explicitly stated that my non-theist god-quest was provoked by the god-gap problem in Big Bang cosmology*1. My Enformer or Programmer is indeed a gap-filler or law-giver. It's similar to Plato's "Logos", except that his was based on the notion of Logical Necessity, not an origin-theory gap. It also plays the role of Aristotle's "Prime Mover", as an alternative to eternal regression of causation. The ancient Greek origin story was rather abstract, suggesting that our orderly world emerged from an eternal state of Chaos. Basically, I was philosophically motivated by the realization that the Big Bang theory --- and it's subsequent gap-fillers --- did not explain the existence/origin of our evolving world*2.

As usual, 180's ad hominem homily -- with sarcastic malice intended -- casts shade, but no light. Although he severely criticizes my personal Information-theoretical god-model, I've never been able to parse-out his own belief on the god-gap question. Does he simply assume that the universe is self-existent? Which could imply that, due to intrinsic Entropy, it is also suicidal. He often quotes Spinoza about his Pantheistic nature-god-model, as do I. But his Angry Atheist act suggests that he is not indifferent to the world-origin god-gap question, which Spinoza did not address -- simply assuming without evidence that Nature/God is eternal. In that case, 180 may pin-up some kind of god-image to throw spleen-darts at. What do you think, is it on the alt-god list, or none of the above, or all of the above? :smile:


*1. Stephen Hawking's big bang gaps :
The laws that explain the universe's birth are less comprehensive than Stephen Hawking suggests. . . . there is no compelling need for a supernatural being or prime mover to start the universe off. But when it comes to the laws that explain the big bang, we are in murkier waters.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/04/stephen-hawking-big-bang-gap

*2. The Big Bang says nothing about the creation of the cosmos :
cosmology says nothing about how the cosmos came to be
https://bigthink.com/13-8/big-bang-does-not-explain-cosmic-creation/

The question I would have for Donald Hoffman is why is his theory not a product of the same evolutionarily-conditioned process that our perception of everything else is? What faculty is it that is capable of arriving at the judgement that he is making? I'm sure he must have considered this, or that it has been asked of him, but I'd like to see the answer. — Wayfarer

The title of Hoffman's book was intentionally provocative. The term "illusion" can be interpreted negatively as "deception"*1 or neutrally as "conception"*2 (i.e. imaginary). So some interpret his message as saying that A> there is no mundane material reality or B> there is no Ultimate Reality, from God's perspective, so to speak. But that's beside the practical point he's trying to make with computer metaphors. Instead, he's talking about the differentiation between sensory Perception (Materialistic) and mental Conception (Idealistic).

Kant addressed the same Real vs Ideal problem in his ding an sich analogy. The thing-in-your-mind is merely a representation of a thing-in-the-material-world, which may also be a single instance of a Platonic Ideal, in the mind of god, as it were. "Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally". What you conceive figuratively is a merely a model of actual Reality. And that's as close to ultimate Reality as you will ever get.

Another approach to that basic distinction is the Cartesian Theater model of imagination, in which a little homunculus in the head --- representing the Soul --- makes sense of the flickering images presented by the senses*3. But that merely kicks-the-can of who's doing the perceiving further down the road. The "faculty" of Knowing (Conception) is functionally different from Sensing (Perception). For example, a video camera dumbly records images from external "reality", but to be aware of that externality requires a conscious Mind. And that transformative functionality raises the modern conundrum, taken for granted by the ancients, of how a data-processing Brain can produce a meaning-making Mind.

Anyway, the mysterious "Faculty" that allows us to interpret sensory data as abstract ideas is old-fashioned Reason : the ability to infer (transform) raw sensory data into personal meaning. The mental Meaning is not the Material Thing, but we use the imaginary model as-if it is real-enough for our practical purposes. An icon on a computer screen compresses all the invisible information processing into a simplified abstract picture, shorn of all its real-world complexities*4. So, what you think you see, is not what's really out there. :smile:


*1. Illusion : Descartes' Deceptive Demon

*2. Concept : an abstract idea; a general notion ; mental image

*3. Sensory shadows : Plato's allegory of the cave

*4. Interface Reality : Model Dependent Realism
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

CARTESIAN THEATER with "mini-me" Soul in the seat

my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test. — spirit-salamander

Coincidentally, I just read an article in the Feb/Mar 2023 issue of Philosophy Now magazine. It is addressed to "fundamentalist Atheists" who argue against fundamentalist Monotheism. It, somewhat satirically, presents alternatives to the Good God model of the Bible. My own god-posit is mostly an explanation for the god-gap in the Big Bang creation story. BB does not begin at the beginning, but assumes the prior existence of Creative Power and Directional Rules for evolution. So, like a Cosmologist, I reasoned backward from current conditions to see if there were any clues to the how & why of sudden emergence from Erewhon (nowhere).

The magazine article is entitled Evil From Outside, and subtitled : alternative explanations of suffering, somewhere between traditional monotheism and new atheism. Again, coincidentally, that could describe my own alt-Deity thesis. I come from a fundamentalist Christian background, but long-ago rejected the authority of the Bible. However, I still saw a philosophical necessity for a Creation Myth to explain why there is something instead of nothing. And the only pertinent revelation is the Creation itself -- as known by inquiring human minds.

The PN article excludes the notion of a Good God, with its intrinsic Problem of Evil (theodicy). So, the author concludes that "The theodicy atheists paint a picture of an imperfect god and then argue that an imperfect God cannot exist". By that, the author assumes that the atheists are saying that "if I was god, the world would not involve suffering". Yet, my own theory accepts the imperfect world as it is, warts and all --- including my own aches & pains & disappointments. And asks "why & how would a supposedly omnipotent world-creator design an imperfect system such as our own beloved habitat?"

I won't go into the details of my own thesis here. So I'll just run through the historical alternatives presented in the article. Perhaps you can add your own Extinct Deity to the list.

1a. Mad or Bad : "that last amorphous blight of nether-most confusion where bubbles and blasphemes at infinity's center the mindless daemon-sultan Azathoth". ___H.P, Lovecraft
1b. "if there is a universal mind, must it be sane?". ___Charles Fort
1c. "Whatever brute or blackguard made the world . . . ?" ___A. E. Housman

2. Cosmic Trickster : Marvel comic poly-deity Loki, or "Satan as seen in the book of Job"

3. Incompetent but loving God : "hopelessly inefficient". A bungler.

4. Quarreling gods : "several gods with divergent opinions" --- as in Homer's stories.

5. Competing Deities : "good and evil beings who are equally powerful" (Zoroastrian, Gnostic)

The author chastises both Theists and Atheists, "Any attempt of create such a path implies that a human being can imagine what it would be like to be God". In my own musings, I try to avoid such hubris. But, as an amateur Philosopher & Cosmologist, I have modeled my own Creator in the image of a human Computer Programmer, in order to draw whatever conclusions that analogy might point toward. But I don't claim to actually "know the mind of God"*1, as both Einstein and Hawking claimed as their goal.

So, the Enformationism thesis was the beginning of my own humble attempt to understand why the First Cause of our world, that Atheists dismiss as a Big Mistake, and that both Einstein & Hawking called "The Grand Design"*2 is the way it is : amazing but not yet perfect. :smile:


*1. In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html

*2. The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)
"What I see in Nature is a grand design that we can understand only imperfectly, one with which a responsible person must look at with humility".
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/616922

Would it be fair to describe your construction or model as panentheism? If so, I would get the point. For my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test. — spirit-salamander

Yes. Here's an excerpt from my thesis glossary :

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.

PS__This information-based god-model omits some of the deficiencies of traditional definitions, that have been deconstructed by Atheists. I'll have more to say in another post.

Every theory that has even a single contradiction in it would be disproved, and the contradiction-free and most all-encompassing one would be the proven one.. . . . a proof is not theoretically impossible — spirit-salamander

Hypothetically, that might be possible. But I'm not aware of any human enterprise that is "contradiction-free" or "all-encompassing". That would seem to require Omniscience.

I just read about the scientific search for order within randomness, which involved attempts to beat the odds in gambling, and to find predictable patterns in the chaos of the stock market. Obviously, the mathematicians believed that beating the house in Las Vegas was "not theoretically impossible". But so far it has been impractical.

They were using early computers in the 1980s, but 40 years later, with much faster calculators, they have been unable to overcome the essential randomness in reality. Yet the author concluded, "Something about the mind, wired to find patterns both real and imaginary, rebels at this notion of fundamental disorder". Ironically, in my information-based thesis, the underlying randomness of the world, provides options for human free-will, including the freedom to make wrong choices, and to bet against the house. :smile:

I had understood you to mean that energy and law of nature before creation were identical to energy and law of nature after creation. In other words, that the pre-existent energy and natural law remains unchanged in the post-existence. — spirit-salamander

That was not what I meant. Instead, the Energy & Laws of our world are defined by the limitations of Space-Time. But the eternal Potential for those specific causes & rules could be adapted to the design requirements of any of a zillion worlds*1. Some scientist have postulated that the laws of physics have evolved along with the matter it governs. I find that hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible.

Anyway, I'm guessing that the Big Bang Singularity was like a computer program containing an operating system of Energy & Laws to govern the evolution of the world it created. A corollary to that creation myth is that the pre-existing Programmer had an infinite array of settings from which to create a world. Don't take this too seriously though. It's just speculation into the unknown from the axiom of an information-processing world. :cool:

*1. This is only about abstract Potential. I make no conjectures about any Actual Worlds other than the one instance we can experience.

What I wanted to say is that I thought that everything that pre-exists is infinitely warped and thus has no identity with what is understood to be energy and natural law after creation. Does what I'm saying make sense? It could be that I have simply misunderstood you. — spirit-salamander

I have no reliable information about pre-existence. So anything I might imagine could be "warped" by my own pre-conceptions. But I still don't grasp what you are trying to imply about an imaginary deity that existed eternally, and that, for no apparent reason, decided to create a world-simulation to play around with. Are you saying that the creator of an imperfect word, must be insane? So his idea of energy & laws would be warped like a fun-house mirror? :joke:

The ground of all being would thus be completely rounded, so to speak. This ground would be absolutely homogeneous as if flawlessly and seamlessly made from one piece. Why should the spawning of space-time parts not diminish it? “Diminish” would actually be an understatement in this case. It would have to be “destroy”, considering that to create would be to use God's “material”, as quoted in the original post. If you take a little of this “material”, you ultimately take all of it. — spirit-salamander

That may be the key difference between our god-models. In my view, the physical world is indeed made of malleable Matter, but the meta-physical world-maker consists only of immaterial Information (power to enform, to create). So, my personal creation myth says that the Programmer converted some of Her ideas (mental essence) into a real world (material stuff). Hence, Mind was transformed into Matter*2. In other words, Aristotelian universal Substance (abstract form ; essence) was converted into particular Substance (matter). You can measure a "little" piece of Matter (Quanta), but Abstract Form is an integrated holistic mental concept, of which you can't measure just one part. That's the idea behind Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory. :nerd:

*2. Matter vs Form :
Aristotle’s hylomorphism is, roughly speaking, the idea that objects are compounds consisting of matter and form.
https://metaphysicsjournal.com/articles/10.5334/met.2
Note -- I interpret "hyle" in terms of modern Matter, and "form" as the modern notion of mental Information (meaning & intention). Another term for "form" is Design. The physical stuff our senses observe is a "compound" of Matter (mass) & Mind (design). We interpret the signals of our senses as meaningful patterns of Information.

The only solution I can see would be to say that the ground of all being has an infinite number of parts (the parts don't have to be on a par, they could be in a hierarchical order). . . . . In fact, those who assume God without parts say that God with parts could be something like Thor. — spirit-salamander

Obviously, we are thinking of "wholes" & "parts" in a different sense : Quantitative vs Qualitative. A physical Whole System does indeed contain many parts*3. But my meta-physical (conceptual) Wholeness is an indivisible Singularity*4. :wink:

*3. Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts.

*4. Singularity :
The point at which a function takes an infinite, uncountable & indivisible, value
Note -- Unlike physical collections of things in space-time, the presumptive Deity is singular, unique, and is of undefinable number. Hence, no parts.

(Aside from the fact that it is probably philosophically and empirically impossible to prove an absolute temporal beginning of the world.) — spirit-salamander

That goes without saying. Philosophers & Cosmologists don't "prove" anything, they merely argue for for their own mental model. In the book I'm currently reading --- Fire in the Mind, by George Johnson (1995) --- a cautionary insight may be relevant here : "When we look upon the grand architectures of cosmology and particle physics with the advantage of hindsight, developments take on an illusory sense of inevitability". So, we need to be aware of our own "filters" that channel everything we see. Despite the pitfalls, we are motivated by the implicit god gap in our scientific models, to speculate for provenance beyond the reach of empirical proving. " the cosmological model we have constructed has become so firmly lodged in the brain that mere humans can be heard to speculate confidently about the very origin of the universe. What caused the big bang? That is where science once left off and religion began".

But were energy as well as natural laws not rather completely distorted before the creation event? — spirit-salamander

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Is that a Katie Mack notion? Are the Laws themselves "distorted" (quantum fluctuations?) or is our view of them warped by preconceptions? Some Cosmologists seem to assume that natural laws were "engraved in stone", so to speak, prior to the Big Bang. Others guess that physical laws develop along with physical evolution. If Natural Laws are inconstant though, then our scientific speculations are shooting at a moving target.

To some extent, I can understand that. In the philosophy of religion, it is often discussed whether God, as the source of all being, has parts or not. Your remarks seem to imply that there are parts. — spirit-salamander

No, I did not intend to imply that the Ground of Being is a composite entity. Instead, the Source of our space-time world is assumed to be a non-physical infinite Whole, which is not diminished by spawning space-time parts. A Whole, by definition, can have parts (holons), which may have subordinate parts of their own. But the First Cause of our own ever-changing part is pictured as the ultimate Whole : the infinite power to create finite things. Not a thing among things, but the essence of beingness; a Qualia, not a Quanta. {see Gestalt God below}

So at creation, parts would have to be converted, which could cause the injury problem mentioned in my original post. God would somehow suffer an injury. What is your assessment of this? — spirit-salamander

A god injured by exercising his own creative power reminds me of the old riddle : "could God create a rock to big for God to pick-up?"; thereby suffering a divine hernia. That notion is skeptical of the possibility of Omnipotence. The implication is that God is a physical being with physical limitations. To me, that sounds like a mythical humanoid god (e.g Thor), which is not what I have in mind as the Prime Mover of the Big Bang. {see Creation vs Conversion below} :smile:

PS__Creation vs Conversion : My information-based Big Bang scenario includes a sort of "Conversion", which I prefer to call a Transformation. The power-to-enform does not involve a physical transmutation of one material thing into another physical thing (e.g. lead into gold). Instead, EnFormAction transforms inexhaustible Potential (cosmic energy) into Actual physical things (matter) that are subject to dis-integrating Entropy. One Whole, many Forms.

PPS__Gestalt God : I just stumbled on this webpage while Googling gestalt (holistic) notions of God. Since I am mostly ignorant of Gestalt theory, this not my personal perspective, but, as a thought experiment, it seems to be relevant to the question of a world-creating Deity's relationship to its Creation (internal parts).
"You are God, nothing exists outside of you, you are everything. You are pure energy, completely formless and unlimited. You are infinite. Something very difficult to comprehend. Now, you wish to learn about yourself, and who you are and what you can do. So you begin to create, but since you are everything and are infinite you can’t create outside of yourself you must create within yourself. It is impossible for something to exist outside of infinity. So you begin to create dimensions like up and a down, and left and right, you begin to create little objects within your self. These objects are not separate from you, they are you, they are within you.
Now you have established internal reference points and objects and are learning about yourself, and what you are capable of. Yet you are not finished. You begin to create little entities within yourself and give them consciousness, so they can look up at you and say: “Ah that’s God, this is me, and this is what we can do.” The singularity has become a plurality but at the fundamental level it is still a singularity."
https://www.gestaltreality.com/articles/the-universe-as-god/

Penrose always says the Universe is not conscious, but that proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of it. Now I'm a bit confused.
1. What is proto-consciousness?
2. How is proto-consciousness differentiated from matter?
3. What is the difference between consciousness and proto-consciousness? — Eugen

Apparently, Penrose is merely postulating that primitive neural nets were not conscious, but evolved toward the kind of awareness that humans experience*1. Unfortunately, that kind of definition does not answer questions 2 & 3.

In place of that short-sighted theory, I have developed my own notion of the origin of consciousness. I won't go into the details here, but basically I view human-style Consciousness as an evolutionary development from fundamental Information*2. Some physicists & information theorists have concluded that Generic Information is the fundamental element of reality ; both Mind & Matter*3.

Based on that understanding of creative evolving Information, I postulate that everything in the universe is a form of Information, but the scientific & philosophical kind of information is a recent development from a non-conscious (Big Bang) origin. That pre-BB beginning was essentially Mathematical ratios, but not yet Mental meanings. If you are interested, I can provide my Information-centric answers to your questions. :smile:

*1. What is proto consciousness? :
Protoconsciousness theory posits “A primordial state of brain organization that is a building block for consciousness” (Hobson 2009)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07296-8_27

*2. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html


*3. Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe. — spirit-salamander

I can understand & agree with that argument --- and the perceived need for it --- except for the "completely" specification. There have been several proposals, as a substitute for ex nihilo creation, that a pre-existing god, in order to create our physical world, converted all or some portion of his own eternal divine substance into the mundane matter of our temporal universe*1. Spinoza, by contrast, postulated that the substance of our world is, and always has been, the substance of god*2. In the 17th century though, he was not aware of the unprecedented-sudden-emergence (Big Bang) theory, so did not have to explain how the transformation ex nihilo or ex deus could occur.

However, my own alternative explanation for the Big Bang creatio ex info is based on 21st century Information theory*3. Some physicists & information theorists have concluded that Generic Information is equivalent to Energy + Laws. Since causal Energy is inherently eternal --- cannot be created or destroyed (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) --- it is a suitable candidate for the divine Substance. But the Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom, that both Energy and Natural Law, existed prior to the creation event. Therefore, since the postulated Generic Information (EnFormAction)*4 combines the creative Power-to-Enform with the Design Parameters of Intention, the complexifying evolution of our vast universe from a dimensionless point in pre-space-time, would no longer be a mystery. It would simply function like a computer program, with an intrinsic operating system.

Unlike your Total Transformation Theory, and the tit-for-tat God's Debris notion, the EnFormAction Thesis leaves the Eternal Enformer (Programmer) intact. That's because the causal power of Nature is merely a temporary Space-Time implementation of the Infinite-Eternal potential of the unlimited power-to-create-worlds-from-scratch. Does any of that techno-theorizing make sense to you? Its primary weakness is that a Reason For Creation (Programmer motivation) is not apparent from inside the not-yet-complete evolution-of-creation (the program) itself. :smile:


*1. God's Debris : A Thought Experiment
It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris". a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris

*2. Spinoza's Substance :
As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature. He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself.
https://cah.ucf.edu/fpr/article/spinoza-on-god-affects-and-the-nature-of-sorrow/

*3. Essential Information :
The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/

*4. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative program of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Prime Mover.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. Call it "The Matrix", "Superman" or "God" or "The cosmos". If all the rest is created, the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need. — Raef Kandil

Pre-science, primitive people were at the mercy of natural forces. They were confused by & fearful of the exigencies & vicissitudes of Nature, that did not demonstrate any concern for the welfare of Rational beings. So, those beings applied their reason to the problem of wild & unruly Nature, with no apparent purpose. Since humans instinctively organized themselves into hierarchies with a decisive strong-man at the top (civilization), it would seem that Nature might work more efficiently with a super-hero in control : a strong Fascist leader makes the trains run on time.

But their real-world experience with human rulers should teach us that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In practice, even after prayers & sacrifices to the imaginary alpha-male in charge, Nature continued to work against their wishes. So, an equally powerful opponent for the the "good god" became necessary to blame when things went wrong, and to make sense of the continued misfortunes of humanity. Sometimes, a nurturing female counter-part was added to neutralize the macho bosses' excesses.

Over time, the pantheon of Nature gods expanded to suit every perceived human need. Still, after all the religious efforts to tame Nature from the top-down, She remains at best neutral to human preferences. So today, we are dependent on Culture & Technology to force Nature to conform to our own needs & wishes. Hence, the perceived necessity for divine succor is less today. Yet, we still feel the need for some protection from Nature's evils, or from the pinching constraints of our Cultural shields. Even The Matrix seemed to be a techno-fix for all that was wrong with both Nature and Culture. . . . . until it decided to serve its own needs above those of its biological creators.

Ironically, "If everything else is created", and the creation itself becomes a problem, then perhaps the world Creator did not intend to create a heaven-on-earth, but a heuristic (trial & error) program to search for the best compromise solution to an open-ended problem. If so, can we expect the designer to intervene every time the cosmic system fails to conform with our local personal needs? Isn't it apparent that the natural world is not a perfected Garden of Eden, but an incomplete system evolving via dog-eat-dog competition? Maybe the savior of mankind will be ever-learning humanity --- a self-serving system within the system --- instead of the absentee Creator. Perchance, we have met the Deity, and he is us. :smile:

”Let a hundred philosophies bloom"
The Hundred Flowers Campaign, also termed the Hundred Flowers Movement, was a period from 1956 to 1957 in the People's Republic of China during which the Chinese Communist Party encouraged citizens to openly express their opinions of the Communist Party. ___Wikipedia — Gnomon

:100: Yes! Definitely! Let the Philosophies bloom, mingle, party, eat and drink, mate, and have many offspring. This also applies to the arts and music, writing, and science (especially the experimental and underfunded varieties. IE those that don’t directly lead to weapons and wealth). — 0 thru 9

If Natural Evolution theory can be applied to Cultural Evolution, a postmodern plethora of optional forms should not matter in the long run. The competition between doctrines & ideologies will grind each other down to a few viable forms & frames. Unfortunately, those of us in the midst of the information explosion may have to find our way through the labyrinth without threads or breadcrumbs. But for me, I find the fundamental foundations of the early Greek philosophers to be a simplifying sifter. :smile:

You hinted, in your talk of metaphysics, at a broader interest in how this question is framed, and asked about "transcendence" being off-limits to philosophers and physicist. The Watkins article presents a logic that can be applied rationally to metaphysics by physicists and philosophers. Thought it might better suit your need than Kant.

My own approach at present would be more after Wittgenstein, as I think I have explained previously. The emphasis must be on the use to which a theory is put, to what can be done and what can be tested. Speculations are fine, provided they are understood as speculations, a parlour game. — Banno

Thanks for the suggestions and link. But, I'm no better informed about Wittgenstein than Kant. My GI Bill college education had no place for Philosophy, except for Logic, and that was a math requirement. Ironically, most of my minimal philosophical knowledge comes from philosophical scientists (e.g. physicist Paul Davies). I find them easier to understand than most academic analytical philosophers. So, I suspect that Wittgenstein, like Kant, would be way above my pay grade. That's why I depend on dumbed-down Wikipedia for accessible tidbits of philosophy.

Regarding "off limits" topics, this thread was inspired by harsh skeptical (Logical Positivism) reactions to my naive willingness to cross the empirical line-in-the-sand, of a material Big Bang beginning, into the imaginary realm of Transcendence -- which was construed as an indication of a god-shaped hole-in-the-heart. Actually, my narrow interest in Metaphysics is due to the 21st century notion that post-Shannon Information is fundamental to reality and equivalent to Energy*1. Yet, the Big Bang theory, about the origin of the material universe, left the origin of Energy (causation), and Natural Laws (organization), as an open question. So, I'm interested in the implicit transcendent Causation & Legislation that Cosmological theories take for granted --- as existing, in some sense, prior to the beginning of our universe, perhaps even eternally.

As a philosophical theory, that supposed eternal Causation & Legislation could fill the "god gap" that current Cosmology leaves open. I'm not expecting to find evidence for a Genesis god, though, in the unclocked time-before-time. At the moment, I refer to "it" as a philosophical Principle, like an Aristotelian "First Cause" or Platonic "Logos", that may be necessary to explain the flow of Information/energy in the real world. A scientific name for that "flow of causation" is "Evolution". Moreover, Darwin's competition for resources has been compared to a computer program crunching information in order to calculate some ultimate output*2. So, I think of the transcendent source of Energy & Laws metaphorically as "The Programmer". That's not a religious concept, but merely a philosophical postulation for the ultimate question of Cosmology : why is there something?

Since I'm merely an unpaid amateur philosophical dabbler, I have no practical "use" for metaphysical speculations. And, I don't need such "parlour games" to support traditional religious beliefs. Yet again, I might be interested in Watkins's "haunted universe" logic, but it's hidden behind a paywall, and requires some kind of affiliation to read or download. I'd like to know a bit more about what's for sale, before I invest my sparse money. :smile:

*1. Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

*2. Programming the Universe :
A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos
___Seth Lloyd
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-Scientist/dp/1400033861

↪Gnomon
Somewhat controversially, Kant took Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry as fundamental. For a while, "Kant's conception looked quaint at best and silly at worst". I'm sceptical that Kant can provide what you are after. — Banno

I'm not sure what you think I'm after. The point of this thread is not the authority, or lack thereof, of Kant's scientific worldview. I simply used his list of Antinomies as an outline for my own observations on Transcendence & Cosmology, and to elicit the opinions of others. His "quaint & silly" conception of physics is irrelevant for my purposes. However, if you find my own notions "quaint & silly", that can't be blamed on Kant, since I am not a Kant scholar or acolyte. Most of what I know of his philosophy comes from Wikipedia.

What I am "after" is an answer to the topical question : "How could something come from nothing?" I too, am doubtful that Kant could shed any light on the 21st century significance of that Big Bang lacuna --- the controversial "god gap" that Christians plug with the Genesis myth, and Atheists fill with Multiverse myths. A secondary question is regarding whether "Transcendence" should be off-limits for inquiring philosophers and cosmologists. Is that concept itself intrinsically "silly"? :smile:

Transcendence & Cosmology :
What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? Is it irrational to imagine the unknowable "What-If" beyond the partly known "What-Is"? Should we "fall-down & prostrate"? or just "shut-up & calculate"? Or is it reasonable for speculative Philosophers & holistic Cosmologists daring to venture into the "Great Beyond" where pragmatic Scientists "fear to tread"?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14109/kants-antinomies-transcendental-cosmology/p1

Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson — Gnomon
Does look a very interesting read.
I again recommend Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter. — Wayfarer

Yes. I read the book almost 30 years ago, before the universal function of Information became a central focus of my personal philosophy. My current Enformationism worldview began only about 15 years ago. So, I'm hoping, the second time around, I'll absorb more of his historical & journalistic overview of post-quantum science. I especially appreciate his metaphorical writing style, that is easier for an amateur to picture, compared to the abstractions of typical technological teaching. As a trivial example, he refers to the Atomic Bomb, developed at Los Alamos, as "mathematical transubstantiation".

Referring to Los Alamos and Santa Fe institutes in northern New Mexico, he says : "There seems to be something about the altitude here and the stark relief between mountains and desert that pushes speculation to the edge and makes even the most sober of scientists more reflective, more willing to turn science back on itself, to theorize about what it means to theorize --- about how we make these maps of the world. A theory can be thought of as the fitting of a curve to a spray of data." [my emphasis] He goes on to juxtapose the otherworldliness of quantum science with the variety of religious "maps" in the same area : pueblo Indians, catholic Mexicans, anti-catholic Protestants, and peace-loving Muslims, along with a myriad of New Age notions. "Retracing the history of these disciplines in a different way --- viewing them more as artful constructions than as excavations of preexisting truth . . ." Then, he suggests a novel way to understand, both the complexities & contradictions of the world, and our methods of making sense of it. "Conversely, we will see physicists seeking signs of contingency in the way the universe happened to crystalize from the Big Bang, Perhaps the particles and forces we observe and the laws they obey are 'frozen accidents', just like biological structures."

Pertinent to this thread on Transcendence & Cosmology, he makes a comment that only years later made sense to me. "an attempt to recast physics and cosmology by climbing back to the trunk of the tree of knowledge . . . . and taking a somewhat different branch, in which the seemingly ethereal concept of information is admitted as a fundamental quantity as palpable and real as matter and energy." [my bold] Later, speaking of the broken symmetries of quantum physics, he said "the world would be mathematical if only reality didn't mess it up". I'll let you guess what he meant by that.

I looked at the website for Mind and the Cosmic Order, but it requires an "institutional subscription". The only "institution" I'm a member of is Google. I downloaded a PDF, but it included only the index. Maybe later. :smile:

As you say, that depends on what is to count as metaphysical. The term is used, and misused, quote broadly.
By way of an example, in the Popperian school ideas are metaphysical if they are not falsifiable. So the conservation laws, being neither provable by mere deduction nor falsifiable, are metaphysics. For Watkins this is no more than an evaluation of their logical structure, but others will take this as an insult, not wanting anything in physics to be metaphysical. The conservation laws are not derived only from logic, but from experimenting and theorising over considerable time. — Banno

Yes, the "Meta" label has debatable baggage. Aristotle didn't classify his Nature topics in terms of falsifiability-by-experimentation, but he did divide his book between A. topics that were knowable by observation (Empirical) and B. topics that were knowable by reason & imagination (Theoretical). The latter later became known as "Metaphysics", and concerned concepts that are not directly knowable by the senses, and not verifiable by empirical methods. Most theories, even today, are endlessly arguable.

Later still, empirical science began to develop methods for testing theories*1. But what we call a "Theory" today is still a philosophical generalization (generic class) that can't be verified short of testing all possible instances of the category hypothesized. So modern science still combines Observation (Physics) with Theorization (Metaphysics)*2. Some theories reach a dominant consensus for a while, but remain open to refutation.

Theoretical Metaphysics has been found useful in Science. So, the problem is not its lack of empirical verifiability (e.g. Big Bang ; Multiverse), but with its associated worldview (Materialism vs Idealism). Some form of Big Bang/MV theory can be taken for granted by those who don't accept religious theories (Genesis ; Messiah) on faith. Both types of theories are "Metaphysical" according to Popper. And neither has any confirmable consequences in the here & now Real world.

So, a pre-BB theory (Cosmology) can be judged plausible if it predicts observable post-BB consequences. Inflation Theory was intended to do so, but fell short*3. Both Multiverse and Genesis theories imply some real-world consequences*4. And both are Metaphysical in that they are not directly & conclusively verifiable. Therefore, "what is to count as metaphysics" seems to boil down to whether it supports your own philosophical worldview, or an "erroneous" view. :smile:


*1. Scientific theory :
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. __Wikipedia

*2. Metaphysics of Science :
Metaphysics of Science is the philosophical study of key concepts that figure prominently in science and that, prima facie, stand in need of clarification. It is also concerned with the phenomena that correspond to these concepts. Exemplary topics within Metaphysics of Science include laws of nature, causation, dispositions, natural kinds, possibility and necessity, explanation, reduction, emergence, grounding, and space and time.
https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/

*3. Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
And it's even worse, they argue, inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=6066fd61b45e

*4. Genesis Prophecies :
https://www.icr.org/article/genesis-prophecies

So, I am asking how do you think about making sense in the maze of philosophical pluralism? Also, to what extent is reason a quest for reason, a search for personal meaning or connected to power balances or imbalances in social structures? — Jack Cummins

As you implied, philosophical pluralism seems to be related to political pluralism. Pre-civilized groups tended to be egalitarian. But as urbanized societies increased in complexity, their governing organization became more hierarchical, and top-down tyranny was the norm (e.g. Pharaohs). However, today, for our global civilization, interconnected by a cacophony of electronic communications, neither Athenian Democracy nor European Fascism are practical solutions to the exigencies of social order for eight billion people.

Likewise, introspective Socratic philosophy was doable in democratic Athenian agora, but could be shouted-down from all sides on a modern internet forum. There may be too many competing & fragmented perspectives for any system to reach a practical dominant or compromise position. So, just as political systems are forced to become de-centralized, philosophical systems are wandering in a disorienting labyrinth of logic with many dead-end branches. Socrates no longer has the singular authority he once provided for the babble of argumentative philosophers. Even for a small group like TPF, there is no center of mass to stabilize the ship of Theseus. :smile:

PS__I hope this doesn't sound too pessimistic. Maybe the sheer mass of collective meanings (wisdom of the crowd) will serve to keep the Ark of Philosophy on an even keel. :joke:

"Let a hundred philosophies bloom"
The Hundred Flowers Campaign, also termed the Hundred Flowers Movement, was a period from 1956 to 1957 in the People's Republic of China during which the Chinese Communist Party encouraged citizens to openly express their opinions of the Communist Party. ___Wikipedia

Who's in charge here?

Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

In the book I'm currently reading, Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson, I came across several passages that deal with the contention between material Physics & mental Metaphysics. The book is generally about then new Santa Fe Institute's*1 unsettling work on Information & Complexity. Are such forays into previously unexplored fringes of physical science (Chaos, Complexity, Cosmology, etc) leading us into Metaphysical error? What is the grammar of Information?

Johnson notes that "we are finite creatures contemplating the infinite, and there is always the danger of confusing our maps of reality with reality itself". But that warning works both ways. Later, he tells about a son who asked his father, "do you believe in ghosts?". The father replies, "No, they contain no matter, and have no energy and therefore, according to the law of science, do not exist except in people's minds". Then, he reflects, "Of course, the laws of physics contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's minds". Tit for tat.

The author goes on to observe that : "Pushed up against this edge, science often retreats into platonism". As an example of such platonic idealism, he offers "information physics*2, being pursued in Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and elsewhere suggest a way of bridging the divide : the laws of the universe are not ethereal, they say, but physical --- made from the stuff called information" Ironically, until Claude Shannon labelled his algorithm's of 1s & 0s as "information", that word had traditionally referred to the ethereal contents of a human mind, such as ideas & memes.

If, as some cutting-edge physicists have concluded, "information is as physical as matter and energy, and if ideas and mathematics are made of information, then perhaps they are rooted in the material world. But the price for banning platonic mysticism may be a dizzying self-referential swirl ; the laws of physics are made of information; information behaves according to the laws of physics. Everything begins to seem like ghosts." Continuing with that theme, he says "with its grand unification theories and cosmological schemes, it is seeking answers so fundamental that they border on theology".

Should we then declare that border a no-fly zone for philosophers and theoretical physicists? Johnson thinks its too late to close the barn door. "Los Alamos and Santa Fe, where people are re-thinking some of the most basic beliefs of science, invite one to gaze inward and wonder if the maps could be drawn differently . . ." And I think grammar-weilding philosophers should lead the exploration of Terra Incognita both mind & matter. :nerd:


*1. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia

*2. Information Physics: The New Frontier
At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. . . . . Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161 (mathematical physics)

Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

In the book I'm currently reading, Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson, I came across several passages that deal with the contention between material Physics & mental Metaphysics. The book is generally about the Santa Fe Institute's*1 unsettling work on Information & Complexity. Are such forays into previously unexplored fringes of physical science (Chaos, Complexity, Cosmology, etc) leading us into Metaphysical error? What is the grammar of Information?

Johnson notes that "we are finite creatures contemplating the infinite, and there is always the danger of confusing our maps of reality with reality itself". But that warning works both ways. Later, he tells about a son who asked his father, "do you believe in ghosts?". The father replies, "No, they contain no matter, and have no energy and therefore, according to the law of science, do not exist except in people's minds". Then, he reflects, "Of course, the laws of physics contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's minds". Tit for tat.

The author goes on to observe that : "Pushed up against this edge, science often retreats into platonism". As an example of such platonic idealism, he offers "information physics*2, being pursued in Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and elsewhere suggest a way of bridging the divide : the laws of the universe are not ethereal, they say, but physical --- made from the stuff called information" Ironically, until Claude Shannon labelled his algorithm's of 1s & 0s as "information", that word had traditionally referred to the ethereal contents of a human mind, such as ideas & memes.

If, as some cutting-edge physicists have concluded, "information is as physical as matter and energy, and if ideas and mathematics are made of information, then perhaps they are rooted in the material world. But the price for banning platonic mysticism may be a dizzying self-referential swirl ; the laws of physics are made of information; information behaves according to the laws of physics. Everything begins to seem like ghosts." Continuing with that theme, he says "with its grand unification theories and cosmological schemes, it is seeking answers so fundamental that they border on theology".

Should we then declare that border a no-fly zone for philosophers and theoretical physicists? Johnson thinks its too late to close the barn door. "Los Alamos and Santa Fe, where people are re-thinking some of the most basic beliefs of science, invite one to gaze inward and wonder if the maps could be drawn differently . . ." And I think grammar-weilding philosophers should lead the exploration of Terra Incognita of mind & matter. Of course, they must be careful to avoid errors of grammar & logic. :nerd:


*1. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia

*2. Information Physics: The New Frontier
At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. . . . . Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161 (mathematical physics)

Each of Kant's antimonies looks to me to have been re-framed, and for the better, in the years after his demise. — Banno

Kant's polarities probably seemed to be more fundamental from a classical (Newtonian) physics perspective. But quantum physics has knocked holes in some watertight classical categories. So, it's understandable that one era's firm facts may tend to wilt over time. But, if you are trying to set-up logical oppositions, for philosophical purposes, can you make a better list? :smile:

Kant vs Newton :
Kant thus directly confronts the metaphysical question of how to understand attraction that Newton attempted to avoid by positing it merely mathematically. As Kant interprets the situation, Newton “abstracts from all hypotheses purporting to answer the question as to the cause of the universal attraction of matter … [since] this question is physical or metaphysical, but not mathematical” (4:515). In response to the “most common objection to immediate action at a distance,” namely “that a matter cannot act immediately where it is not” (4:513), Kant argues that action at a distance is no more problematic than action by contact (whether it be by collision or pressure), since in both cases a body is simply acting outside itself.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

But this insight can't be captured or described in propositional terms, as it is something that has to be actualised. The crucial error in Western culture is to attempt to reduce it to propositional knowledge on par with (but inferior to) empirical or natural science. — Wayfarer

True. But, I doubt that Western science is seriously challenged by the notion of Eastern self-transcendence, since each person can define his own criteria, and keep his propositional knowledge to himself. But Transcendence of physical (space-time) limits would undermine some basic assumptions of classical empirical science. So, it's a no-go.

Likewise, Metaphysics (Idealism) would be like a parallel realm of Reality (what I call "Ideality") that is inaccessible to the physical tools of Science. Also, mathematics is sometimes conceived in Platonic terms, and Psychology can be interpreted as dealing directly with the metaphysical Mind, instead of the physical Brain. Yet again, those classifications are moot.

Self-transcendence may be subjectively "actualized" without being objectively realized. So, it's not much of a threat to a Materialistic worldview. That's why Steven Jay Gould could accept the conciliatory notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" as a compromise between Science (how) & Religion (why). Similarly, I tend to view Philosophy, ideally, as an attempt to live in that demilitarized zone. :smile:

↪Gnomon
, prior to Kant there were various approaches to philosophy that tried to derive metaphysical, and even physical, facts from first principles by mere deduction. Kant's Antinomies might best be seen as a nascent version of the realisation that logic, on it's own, does not lead to any conclusions. — Banno

I am not a Kant scholar, and I had never heard of his list of Antinomies (logical contradictions) until I read the article quoted in the OP. So, Kant's authority is not a concern of mine. The list was just a convenient outline for an open-ended philosophical discussion on the inherently meta-physical topics of "Transcendence & Cosmology". The browsing questions are inviting considered opinions, not final answers*1. I doubt that we will ever "deduce" any full-stop ultimate conclusions about "Transcendence" or "Metaphysics". But we may refine our personal worldviews with such abstractions, sifted through fine-grained philosophical argumentation.

However, since you mentioned it, how else would you derive "metaphysical facts" apart from "mere deduction"? Are such non-physical necessities empirically observable & testable? What is a "metaphysical fact" anyway*2, other than a consensus opinion drawn from collective reasoning rather than experimentation? I suppose you are expecting that "conclusions" drawn from a pattern of "metaphysical facts" would be merely confirmation of prior personal beliefs? So, as with all such abstract or ideal topics, a modicum of skepticism would be advisable. But a complete ban on metaphysical speculation would be the death of philosophy.

A list of opposing concepts, exclusive of middle ground, logically neutralizes itself. So any useful conclusions would have to come from the inter-relationships between those extremes. Therefore, your comment that abstract Logic alone (sans concrete instances) cannot lead to practical knowledge, goes without saying. Besides, as Hume noted, Reason serves at the pleasure of the passions ; so philosophers must learn to control their own base motives. This forum is a school of hard knocks for self-serving egos. :smile:

*1. Transcendental Cosmology :
PS__In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary & questions on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology. What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence?
___original post

*2. What is an example of metaphysical facts? :
Examples of metaphysical concepts are Being, Existence, Purpose, Universals, Property, Relation, Causality, Space, Time, Event, and many others. They are fundamental, because all other concepts and beliefs rest on them.
http://getwiki.net/-Metaphysics

It's just the ever-present temptation to jump to a conclusion, to believe one has the answer before the arguments are finished, that is to be avoided. — Banno

Yes. hasty generalizations are to be avoided in rational argumentation. Ironically, such leaps do occasionally occur, even on a philosophy forum. But, how can you know when the "arguments are finished"? In formal Logic, conclusions are supposed to necessarily follow from the indubitable premises presented. But on this amateur forum, such mathematical logic is rarely presented.

Transcendence & Metaphysics are inherently doubtful, and must be supported by reasoning instead of experimentation. And in this thread, absolute final facts cannot be expected to compute from the informal "ruminations" and open-ended questions of the OP*1. I'm aware that many, if not most, comments on this forum are implicitly defending a sentimental personal worldview, instead of abstract Truth. So, speaking of antinomies, your admonition should apply to devotees of both Physicalism & Metaphysicalism, both Materialism & Idealism, both Naturalism & Transcendentalism. :cool:

I would like to introduce an argument in response to the "Who Designed the Designer?" question. The question of "Who Designed the Designer?" is often asked as a challenge to the concept of intelligent design or the existence of a creator. It assumes that if everything in the universe requires a cause or a designer, then the designer itself must also have a cause or a designer. — gevgala

The Designed Designer (or Caused Causer) challenge assumes that the postulated First Cause exists within the normal space-time system of sequential causation. The implicit argument seems to deny a concept that is typically assumed as an axiom by Design proponents : Eternity. "Eternity" (like "Zero") makes no sense from a real-world perspective. The notion of a spaceless & timeless state is an Ideal concept, and is meaningless to a Materialist/Realist. Yet idealistic philosophers play around with non-existent notions all the time. Since Eternity is abnormal though, they may try to make Timelessness more sensible by defining it as an undefined quantity of Time. Which merely dodges the essence of Eternity.

For example, Aristotle made a distinction between Potential & Actual. He didn't present a mathematical definition of "Potential", but today we could think of Potential in statistical terms. A mathematical "state" is an abstract quality similar to Eternity or Infinity, with unlimited possibilities, until a quantity is specified. So a statistical state is unreal (a mathematical variable : X) until something (a Causal input) provokes it to manifest as a real object with real properties & values. That actualization event is similar to a quantum particle that suddenly transforms from a holistic wave into a particularistic piece of matter. The Potential for that particle existed mathematically (Schrodinger's equation) even though the Actual dot of matter was undetectable in its entangled (holistic) state. But in Designer arguments, "Potential" is equivalent to "non-existent", for all practical purposes*1.

Aristotle tried to bypass the non-existent implications of Eternity, as an infinite progression of causation, by proposing a hypothetical "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover", as a logic stopper. Still, the first instance of causation must logically be preceded by some kind of impetus. So, centuries later, Spinoza defined his First Cause as a self-caused Necessary Being*2. And he postulated that the real world is a physical manifestation of a metaphysical Potential. For example, the marble Taj Mahal was the real manifestation of an ideal concept in the mind of the designer : Ustad Ahmad Lahori. Of course, even spooky philosophers can't define a hypothetical Being into real world existence. So, to this day, the Designer of this "Grand Design"*3, remains an Idealistic concept that may or may not be imagined as a completely separate category from normal physical existence. :smile:


*1. What is fallacy first cause? :
This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence. Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing.
https://www.wa4dsy.net/skeptic/firstcause.html
Note -- Potential is a metaphysical state of being that is able to transform into a physical form of existence. Some thinkers cannot conceive of metaphysical (ideal) existence.

*2. Spinoza's First Cause :
God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

*3. THE GRAND DESIGN


THE MANIFESTATION OF DESIGN

↪hypericin
Is there such a thing as uninterpreted information? Put another way, how does anything constitute information until its been interpreted? I mean, the genetic information transmitted by DNA is interpreted by ribosomes. But in the non-organic realm, what sense does it make to speak of information at all? Sure, we can ascertain vast amounts of data about the Universe, which then constitutes information, but does the Universe itself constitute 'information' in any meaningful sense? — Wayfarer

In my own musings on the development of Information Theory, I take seriously the conclusion of quantum theorists that abstract analog Information is equivalent to Energy. If so, there can be both Potential Information (DNA) and Actual Information (protein). Any "uninterpreted information" would be like the Energy stored in Momentum or Position : it can be actualized in a "collision" that transforms Momentum into Action. That dynamic relationship works for both organic and non-organic aspects of Nature. Potential Energy (ability to do work) is the not-yet-activated Power of Position (relationship), as illustrated by gravity's changing force relative to a gravitational body.

A recent development in Physics is the notion that Information is a basic property of the Universe. Ironically, the philosophical implication that idea is that the fundamental element of the world is something similar to an information-processing Mind. Tegmark has proposed that our Reality is an ongoing computation by that hypothetical (mysterious) mind. Unfortunately, his mathematical theory is idealistic and unverifiable by empirical means. So, it remains a philosophical conjecture of reasoning from abstractions like logical/mathematical structure (ratios). You can take it or leave it, as seems reasonable to you. But you can't prove or disprove it. Perhaps treat it as a 21st century myth. But more romantic minds might prefer to imagine the Cosmic Mind as dreaming the apparent world, instead of mechanical Nature computing the physical world. :smile:


Information as a basic property of the universe :
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

A Universe Built of Information :
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_13

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Just to be sure, you do see that it does not follow from this that there is no "independent reality"? — Banno

I'll defer to Hoffman to answer that question from a better-informed position. In the video linked above, he addresses the conundrum : "does the moon exist when we're not looking"? As a "naive realist" though, I assume -- without sensory evidence -- that the moon continues to exist apart from my sensory experience of it. But I can't prove it. :joke:

PS__Is the world within a Virtual Reality headset an "independent reality"?

The point about Kant's antinomies is their grounding in his observation that we ask questions we can't know the answers to, as a consequence of our ability to reason. That's the sense in which they're comparable to the Buddha's 'unanswered questions'. You can waste a lot of time wondering, but the reality of existence is a pressing matter and not captured by speculative wondering. Not that it's something that I myself don't do. — Wayfarer

The point of this thread is to ask the question : Is it a sin for a professional astronomer to speculate on a cosmological view from god's perspective? Or is it a waste of brain-power for a philosopher to engage in imaginary Ontological & Epistemological exploration? Are we chasing the elusive butterfly of love? :smile:

Yeah. I'm reading that. Not so impressed.
There's a trend for engineers and physicist to move in to philosophy. What I've noticed is that they at first suppose that they have the answer to an age-old philosophical issue; they present this to the community, and are taken aback that it is not just accepted. Often, what happens is that they have only a superficial grasp of the issue, and so are not seeing the full breadth of the issue.
I'll have more to say when I finish Hoffman. — Banno

Don't take the title of the book too literally. It was intended to be provocative. Hoffman said that he began as a "naive realist". But after years of research into perception & conception, he has evolved to a more nuanced philosophical view of reality --- a virtual reality. He's another pragmatic scientist, who was forced by the direction of the data to "move into philosophy" : Ontology & Epistemology. So back to the question of this thread : is it a bad thing for serious scientists to dabble in "trivial" philosophy? Is philosophy the underachieving poor relation of science?

The video linked below might "impress" you more than the book. A writer can present his views in a logical linear manner. But, when challenged man-to-man & face-to-face, a "superficial grasp of the issue" might begin to unravel to reveal kinks in the logic. Michael Shermer is a science-defending skeptic by trade, and few people can go toe-to-toe with him and come out with their dignity intact. :smile:

SKEPTIC interview with Hoffman :
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer-show/donald-hoffman-case-against-reality-why-evolution-hid-truth-from-our-eyes/

"take it seriously, but not literally"

As I see it Kant doesn't offer the thing-in-itself as an explanation of anything, other than to point out that if something appears it seems to follows that there must be something which appears. and we seem to have no reason to believe that that which appears is the exactly the same as its appearance, or even anything at all like it. — Janus

...and no reason to think that it might be other than it appears. Kant is just using language badly. — Banno

Hoffman sheds new light on the old ding an sich question : evolution, via conditional survival, has taught us to treat "appearances" as-if they are the real thing. If you follow his evidence and reasoning, it should make sense. But, if you judge it by common sense, it may sound like non-sense. :smile:

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality :
The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

So what makes them informative? Well, when they have a use. So this view is mote sympathetic to Hossenfelder, that if a theory can't be checked against the world, can't be made use of, then it amounts to little. — Banno

Hossenfelder is/was an empirical scientist, and she insists that "Physicists must stop doing metaphysics"*1. Ironically, the same warning could apply to this forum : Philosophers should stop pretending to do Physics. Science is the search for practical knowledge that has a pragmatic "use" in the real world (e.g. food & clothing). But philosophy, by definition, is a search for abstract "wisdom" (e.g. to mature our minds). So, the "use" (purpose) of Wisdom is Discernment or Judgment : "ability to reach intelligent conclusions".

Both approaches (exploring outer & inner worlds) can be "informative" and useful, but Science is supposed to use its information to navigate the Real world of Nature, and Philosophy uses its wisdom to negotiate the Ideal world of human Culture. Is natural information (facts) more "informative" than inter-personal information (beliefs & values)? Is putting a man on Mars a practical "use" of Science? Is the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) a pragmatic "use" of scientific knowledge, or is it feckless Philosophy? Is Cosmology "informative" or merely a vain attempt to see the world from a divine perspective? :wink:

*1. "Don't confuse science with philosophy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCZh4VE0k-0

As for Kant, there's been some developments in philosophy over the last two hundred years. You wouldn't think so looking around here, but that's part of the oddity of these fora. — Banno

Yes, but this thread applies Kant's 400 year old antinomies to 21st century Cosmology : Philosophical Science and/or Metaphysical Physics? And the jam-fingered people quantum-tunneling through the imaginary wall between pragmatic physics & idealistic metaphysics are the professional physicists that Hossenfelder shakes her mommy-finger at*1.

Hence, the topic of this thread*2. Should we try to prohibit (legislate) Theoretical Scientists from practicing Theoretical Philosophy, or vice-versa*3? Is it even possible to completely separate Natural Philosophy from General Philosophy : separation of powers ; non-overlapping magisteria? 2500 years ago Aristotle divided his encyclopedia of Nature into observational (physics) and theoretical (metaphysics) volumes. And we are still trying pretend that human knowledge must be either utilitarian or irrational, with no middle ground? :nerd:


*2. Transcendental Cosmology :
What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? Is it irrational to imagine the unknowable "What-If" beyond the partly known "What-Is"? Should we "fall-down & prostrate"? or just "shut-up & calculate"? Or is it reasonable for speculative Philosophers & holistic Cosmologists daring to venture into the "Great Beyond" where pragmatic Scientists "fear to tread"? ___original post

*3. Einstein's Quest to 'Know God's Thoughts'
"In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
The phrase "God's thoughts" is a delightfully apt metaphor for the ultimate goal of modern physics,"
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html

It's not merely a grammatical matter... — Janus
Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

Perhaps. But overestimating the proper scope of Physics might also have bad consequences. Blocking access to metaphysical ideas would turn Philosophy into Empirical Physics --- and by what authority?. Would Physical Philosophy be a desirable alternative to the current unverifiable & unregulated metaphysical speculations of Philosophers & Cosmologists?

Grammar is merely the structure of language, while Semantics is the content. So you could equate Grammar with Empirical Physics, and Semantics with Theoretical Metaphysics. Universal Grammar is a constraint on language, while the meaning of our words is malleable and subject to personal interpretation in variable applications. But somehow we manage to communicate, despite the cacophany.

Should we take away the freedom of poets to interpret the world? Should we legislate against Metaphysics, as the Marxists attempted to do? Or should we continue to openly debate Transcendent ideas, in the free market of ideas, as philosophers have always done? Let's not over or under-estimate, but aim for the Golden Mean. :smile:


Grammar refers to the structure of language: how words are used in speech and how groups of words are put together in patterns. Semantics refers to the literal meaning of the words we use. Both concepts are connected to the use of language, but are different aspects of language function.

Universal Grammar is usually defined as the “system of categories, mechanisms and constraints shared by all human languages and considered to be innate”

"Language allows us to transcend time and space by talking about abstractions, to accumulate shared knowledge, and with writing to store it outside of individual minds"
"The Origins of Us: Evolutionary Emergence and the Omega Point Cosmology (The Science and Philosophy of Information Book 1)" by Alex M. Vikoulov

The issue then becomes what "limit" might mean, in regard to space-time. And it's not going to be the same now as it was for Kant.
This by way of showing that there is nothing in the antinomies themselves. — Banno

I suppose the "antinomies" are merely polar opposite positions that we could take in philosophical arguments. As you implied, Kant was not concerned with the antinomies per se, but with the conflict that arises from such black-vs-white opinions. That's also why Aristotle advised us to aim at the Golden Mean, instead of "either of two abstract things that are as different from each other as possible".

I'm just guessing that what Kant meant by "limitation" on space-time was implicit in his use of "Transcendence" to describe our philosophical speculations beyond the boundaries of space-time into infinity-eternity --- both of which are merely abstract ideas. And that's the topic of this thread : Is it acceptable for philosophers & cosmologists to make conjectures about anything not directly perceptible by the physical senses? If not, then they are wasting everybody's time with literal non-sense : "passing wind". In that case, this whole forum could be characterized as nothing but a collective fart.

Whereas Locke & Hume proposed a "blank slate" model of the human mind, Kant argued that "the blank slate model of the mind is insufficient to explain the beliefs about objects that we have; some components of our beliefs must be brought by the mind to experience"*1. Empiricism implies "garbage-in, garbage-out" (GIGO), with nothing contributed by the information processor. Yet, Steven Pinker studied the tabula rasa question, and concluded that the human brain is born with innate categories, into which sensory inputs are sorted.

Pinker is an advocate of the Computational Theory of Mind*2. The result of that computing & processing is not GIGO, but novel ideas that add a personal perspective (qualia ; beliefs) to the objective facts. To filter out the garbage requires Judgement & Wisdom. Which is the whole point of Philosophy, is it not? Empiricism collects raw facts, while Rationalism selects & cooks those facts*3, sometimes combining antinomies of sweet & sour. :smile:



*1. Empiricism vs Transcendence :
Since the human mind is strictly limited to the senses for its input, Berkeley argued, it has no independent means by which to verify the accuracy of the match between sensations and the properties that objects possess in themselves. . . . Hence, while Kant is sympathetic with many parts of empiricism, ultimately it cannot be a satisfactory account of our experience of the world.
___Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

*2. Computation of Mind :
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. . . . The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind


*3. The main difference between Rationalism And Empiricism is that rationalism is the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic while on the other hand empiricism is the knowledge that is derived from experience and experimentation. Rationalism is about intuition while empiricism is about visual concepts.
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/rationalism-vs-empiricism/

I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes — Gnomon
Thanks for the reply. Neat image. :cool: — jgill

Yes, the cosmic sausage-link image does neatly encapsulate the "Big Bounce" theory of cyclic universes pinched-off from previous 'verses. But such information leakage models require some exotic physics. And the accelerated expansion models seem to turn the bounce into a "Big Rip". Those one-way models assume a single line of linear time. Yet other Cosmological models envision multiple miniverses budding-off from a singular central Multiverse. However the point of the original post is that all of these math-supported speculations, while internally logical, are not scientific theories, but philosophical conjectures that attempt to deny the unique creation-event implications of the Big Bang theory..

Meanwhile, other thinkers limit their speculations to the knowable world. And a popular cosmological model (Tipler 1995) begins and ends with a Singularity, sometimes labeled "Alpha & Omega Point" theories. Ironically, both Singularities are defined as "God". Others label the future Omega Point as a Technological Singularity (Vikoulov 2020). How can these confusing Ontologies be simplified into a plausible Epistemology? :smile:

Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe
by Charles Seife, author of ZERO : Biography of a dangerous idea
https://www.amazon.com/Alpha-Omega-Search-Beginning-Universe/dp/0142004464

ONE & DONE : EXPANSION + ACCELERATION

BIG RIP

BIG BUDS from Multiverse

RHIZOME (rootlike) Multiverse

I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible. — Gnomon
:up: I guess I can't steal that word "quibbleable" now. You own it. — L'éléphant

That's easy for you to say. :joke:

Scholar T R V Murti notes in his 1955 book, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, that there are considerable similarities between this list and Kant's antinomies of reason, particularly the first four. (The book contains many comparisions of Buddhist philosophy and Kant, for which it is nowadays mainly criticized.) The Buddhist attitude towards such imponderables is expressed by the 'simile of the poisoned arrow', in which a wanderer is shot by a poisoned arrow, but rather than seeking to have it removed, wants to know who fired it, what it was made of, etc, and consequently dies as a result. The Buddha's teaching is to 'remove the arrow', i.e. overcome the cankers and cravings, rather than think about unanswerable questions such as these. — Wayfarer

Yes, the Buddha seemed to be a practical empiricist instead of a theoretical metaphysicist, focused on the concrete here & now instead of imponderable possibilities. Even so, he postulated a few metaphysical notions, such as Nirvana & Non-Self, in order to explain why we should do what he prescribed. Perhaps his avoidance of metaphysics made his philosophy more palatable to pragmatic modern Western minds, even though his own people quickly turned his austere science of the mind into ritualistic religion of the senses. :smile:

Reason doesn’t concern itself with the reality of appearances, nor imagining ideals. Reason is a logical function, by which the principles we understand in support of science, are applied to that which science doesn’t support, or hasn’t yet supported. Sometimes it works, re: chasing light beams and standing in free-falling elevators, sometimes it doesn’t, re: an unconditioned cause. — Mww

I agree. Such speculations are metaphysical, not physical. Obviously, reasoning from experience with conditional causes to an unconditioned First Cause cannot provide empirical evidence for the actual existence of such a transcendental entity. But perhaps such reasoning beyond experience can point to a plausible explanation for existence : Ontology. Theoretical Philosophers can "boldly go" where empirical science cannot. And that's what theoretical Cosmologists have done with their conjectures of a time-before-Time. Is that a waste of time, or merely a way to put our brief time on Earth into a larger perspective?

The quoted science articles at the beginning of this thread indicate that some Big Thinkers think that our world must have emerged from something instead of nothing : "Cosmic silence before the Big Bang" and "Before the Big Bang". Yet, philosopher of science Bjorn Ekeberg, in The Delusions of Cosmology, admitted that even the Big Bang was a metaphysical hypothesis. So, he seems to be implying that Cosmology is not Science, but Philosophy. As such, it uses logical extensions from known information to make its conjectures seem plausible. Therefore, if you disagree with the logic, you can deny the premises. Do you think Big Bang and Multiverse have been validated? Do you think Cosmology is an appropriate topic on a Philosophy Forum? :smile:


You can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics :
From the outset, the 'Big Bang' was always a hypothetical premise - if t=0, then... it allowed for calculation of scenarios. When this in turn could yield models that conformed to observations, it was seen to validate the original premise. . . . . My point is you can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics; to think cosmology is pure science is delusional. . . . The Enlightenment ideal is still vitally important to science but the belief that the universe is made of math and that the role of physicists is to reveal its 'secret code' is a pervasive strand of thought in modern science that is indistinguishable from faith. ___Bjorn Ekeberg
https://iai.tv/articles/the-delusions-of-metaphysics-auid-2145

Skipping over a couple of hundred years of disenchantment, it occurs to me to ask: are people today enchanted by magic spells? Off the top of my head, and not all equally relevant to power, here are some candidates:

Conspiracy theories
Demagoguery, nationalism, the alt-right
Science (as scientism)
New Age spirituality: "I'm spiritual but not religious"
Progress/Decline/Catastrophe
Consumerism — Jamal

Yes. Magic, like Marketing, is in the business or creating desirable images in the mind of observers. The power of mis-direction does not force, but merely leads the sheep willingly to the fold. That's only a bad thing when mutton is on the menu. :smile:

The question of free will then only applies when we come to that fork in the road. — invicta

Yes. A driverless car, approaching a fork in the road, would normally plow straight ahead. But with natural or artificial intelligence, it could choose to take the fork that leads to its intended destination. Unless of course the destination has not been pre-selected by an intentional agent. :smile:

Sorry to quibble, but quarks are sub-atomic, not atomic, and considered to be the smallest particle.

Then on the non-quibble, is Kant's work really a good example to use for your topic?
If your critique is on cosmology, why not use Ptolemy and Thales? What's so special about Kant? His transcendental idealism? This is the wrong application of Kant's work. — L'éléphant

I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible.

This thread was inspired by the Big Think article, which mentioned "Kant's First Antinomy". The rest is just me babbling about Transcendence --- about which, according to Kant, I know nothing. But, per Kant, as a philosophical thinker, I can't help but transgress beyond the transcendental boundaries in the ship of Pure Reason. Besides, Cosmologists have already made in-roads into the Terra Incognita. So, even amateurs like me can experience little adventures into unverifiable Possibilities. :smile:

The antinomies themselves merely demonstrate, on the one hand, reason’s proclivity to transcendental illusion, and on the other, the very same reason’s exposition of the error contained in it. — Mww

So, was Kant saying that his own Transcendental Idealism is an illusion and an error? Or was he merely warning about how easy it is for reason to accept "appearances" as reality, and also to imagine "ideals" as more real than the testimony of the senses? Apparently, Science can play it safe by avoiding Metaphysics altogether. but Philosophy's job description is to explore the un-mapped territory beyond the known safe zone. :smile:


Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics :
Very generally, Kant’s claim is that it is a peculiar feature of reason that it unavoidably takes its own subjective interests and principles to hold “objectively.” And it is this propensity, this “transcendental illusion,” according to Kant, that paves the way for metaphysics. Reason plays this role by generating principles and interests that incite us to defy the limitations of knowledge already detailed in the Transcendental Analytic. . . . .
Kant, however, complicates things somewhat by also stating repeatedly that the illusion that grounds metaphysics (roughly, that the unconditioned is already given) is unavoidable. Moreover, Kant sometimes suggests that such illusion is somehow necessary for our epistemological projects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/


Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of a mathematical point-of-convergence (zero point singularity) between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity? — Gnomon
Not sure what this means in a math context. The north pole of the Riemann sphere is, in a sense, "the" point at infinity in the complex plane. So in the chordal metric one gets closer and closer to "infinity". — jgill

I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes : before & after the Singularity. In Multiverse theory the chain of universes would continue in both directions : infinite past & infinite future. The implicit point is that the beginning point of our universe would not be Singular, but Incidental.

The image below may be closer to what I was trying to express in inadequate words : that The Multiverse (portrayed as a singular thing) implicitly minimizes the significance of our own universe's birthday (Copernican Principle). Matter, Energy, and Natural Laws eternally evolving new worlds, but without end or purpose.

The intended question was whether imagining the source of our existence as an all-encompassing Multiverse (Eternal/Infinite existence with unlimited Potential) could be considered as a god-like Creative Power (including the innate potential for Life & Mind). For scientific purposes of course, that limitless Power is assumed to be Accidental, instead of Intentional : perhaps containing little minds, but mindless as a whole system : a blind groping demi-deity. :nerd:

Singular : exceptional ; uncommon
Incidental : accompanying but not a major part of something.
Multiverse :
The multiverse is a hypothetical group of multiple universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. ___Wikipedia


A schematic representation of a generic Big Bang singularity , corresponding to a (0) = 0. The universe can be continued before the Big Bang without problems.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-schematic-representation-of-a-generic-Big-Bang-singularity-corresponding-to-a0-0_fig2_51966428

In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon

Outline : https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ggoddu/modern/272h-k1.html

# 1st Antinomy
Thesis : The world is limited with regard to (a) time and (b) space.
Antithesis : The world is unlimited with regard to (a) time and (b) space.

Comment --- Big Bang theory provided circumstantial reasons for assuming that space-time is existentially bound in the past, by infinity-eternity. But the future seems bounded only by Entropy. Einstein hypothesized that the physical shape of the universe is finite but unbounded. which describes a static sphere. However, the expanding universe seems to be unconstrained in volume and surface area. So, the physical boundaries are somewhat flexible.

In response to the ex nihilo implications of instant emergence, the formerly singular universe (Nature) has been hypothetically multiplied into an infinite-eternal Multiverse, presumably unlimited in space & time, and inexhaustible in Creation & Causation. How plausible is that unlimited higher-dimension “super-nature” into which our space-time-bounded balloon universe is expanding? Do such unverifiable cutting-edge concepts qualify as non-scriptural theological god-posits, or as non-empirical atheist god-surrogates?

# 2nd Antinomy
Thesis : Every composite substance in the world is made up of simples.
Antithesis : No composite substance in the world is made up of simples.

Comment --- Modern Science has been pursuing the holy grail of Atomism for centuries. But each presumed (and hailed) fundamental particle has been superseded by another hypothetical “Simple”. Currently Quarks are no longer pictured as atomic, but composite. So the material world may also be flexible in space & time. What then, what does this unfulfilled quest tell us about rock-solid Materialism? Do we have to go out of this world to find the ultimate transcendent Simple : the essential element from which reality is built?

“In contemporary mereology, a simple is any thing that has no proper parts. Sometimes the term "atom" is used, although in recent years the term "simple" has become the standard.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_(philosophy)

Traditional Atomism asserts that all physical objects consist of different arrangements of eternal atoms and the infinite void in which they form different combinations and shapes. There is no room in this theory for the concept of a God, and essentially it is a type of Materialism or Physicalism. https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_atomism.html


# 3rd Antinomy
Thesis : There is freedom in the world.
Antithesis : There is no freedom in the world.

Comment --- Free-Will arguments typically hinge on the notion of an unbroken chain of Causation & Determinism. But Quantum Theory introduced random statistical states-of-being that seem to be a-causal and indeterminate. But are statistical states real, or just mathematical abstractions? If Math is the logical foundation of Science, how can it allow ontological freedom : gaps in the chain of causal determination?

Psychologist Karl Jung postulated an Acausal Connecting Principle ("Synchronicity") related to Awareness, Meaning & Time. While that anything-goes notion may make sense for Metaphysics, is antithetical to Classical Physics. Can it be reconciled with the queerness of Quantum Physics?

A-Causal : isolated event or thing existing without a known provenance.

“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/

Ontological Freedom :
To claim that human beings possess freedom is one way to resolve this conflict, but the existence of freedom raises problems of its own—in addition to concern over the source of this freedom and its manner of interacting with the causal chains in which it supposedly interferes, the existence of freedom seems to undermine our ability to explain any events according to causal rules, insofar as those rules lose their universality and applicability to a large range of events in the world. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=gradschool_theses

# 4th Antinomy
Thesis : A necessary being is either part of or cause of the world.
Antithesis : A necessary being is not (a) part of the world or (b) cause of the world.

Comment --- Everything in space-time seems to be contingent on prior causes. Except of course, the first step in the physical chain of causation : the Singularity that banged. Everything after that first event in the 14 billion year series of transitions, from nothing to something, has been contingent. Was the mathematical Singularity somehow exempt from the laws of physics? Was the Singularity super-natural? Is there a higher law of Necessity that transcends contingency? If Logical Necessity preceded the beginning of Time, is it a Being, or a Simple, or a rational Principle?

Summary :
Posters on The Philosophy Forum often run afoul of supposed limiting Laws of Ontology & Epistemology. The transgression occurs when we try to extend our metaphysical Minds beyond the physical limits of space-time-matter-energy. Is that excursion even permissible in modern empirical Philosophy? Can we "cognize transcendent reality by means of pure reason"? Or is Philosophy limited, like Science, to physical means of knowing, and to the mental margins of space-time? If we somehow quantum-tunnel through the invisible walls around Reality, are we in danger of losing our sanity? Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of a mathematical point-of-convergence (zero point singularity) between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity?

Considering that we have only one instance of Reality for evidence, is the expansive notion of an Infinite Regression of Bangs (serial Singularities ; repetitive Black Hole leaks ; cyclic-creation-events) a plausible scientific solution to the enigma of existence? What can Multiverse or Many Worlds theories tell us that we don't already know? Wouldn't Ockham's Razor prefer a more parsimonious postulation? Can we condense the various pre-bang scenarios into a singular Eternal Potential? Would that explain more or less than more-of-the-same-stuff hypotheses?

_In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon

KANT'S ANTINOMIES :
*1. "The antinomies, from the Critique of Pure Reason, are contradictions which Immanuel Kant argued follow necessarily from our attempts to cognize the nature of transcendent reality by means of pure reason".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies
Note -- Transcendent Reality : is this an oxymoron ; antinomy ; contradiction ; paradox?
Oxymorons may seem illogical at first, but in context they usually make sense
*2. Kant calls transcendental realism the “common prejudice” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/
*3. Meaning of Infinite Transcendent Reality:
“This being is transcendent, meaning that it is beyond the normal range of our experience of our material universe. At the same time this being is a reality in the human life process.”
*4. “Pure Reason seeks answers about topics that are beyond the five senses (also called metaphysical questions, e.g. about God, Creation, Soul, etc.). Practical Reason is content with answers about topics within the realm of the fives senses, e.g. questions about Economics, Psychology, Science. “
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-pure-reason-and-practical-reason