↪Tom Storm
He’s a cognitive scientist but as he doesn’t subscribe to materialism so it seems suggestive of idealism. I’m going to read that critical review Banno posted. — Wayfarer

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine has an article by columnist Raymond Tallis that is critical of Hoffman's theory. He accuses Hoffman of "Darwinitis" : "the claim that evolution completely explains the human person". But I didn't get that impression from The Argument Against Reality. Instead, he uses the step-by-step heuristic*1 mechanism of adaptation to illustrate how an incomplete understanding of Reality could be "good enough" for practical purposes*2 . Presumably, long-suffering Evolution is not concerned with perfect adaptations, only workable solutions. Tallis also accuses Hoffman of "self-refutation". As a truth-seeker himself, Tallis is especially critical of Hoffman's "Fitness Beats Truth" theorem. But that's how evolution works, as opposed to the one step perfection of divine creation.

Despite the messiness of reality, Philosophers like clear-cut conceptual categories. So, Tallis's put-down of Hoffman's theory seems to assume that Idealism and Realism are mutually exclusive. And that is indeed how those worldviews are typically presented, by believers in one paradigm or the other. But my BothAnd worldview treats those clashing categories as just one of many apparent paradoxes in both Philosophy (e.g. Sorites) and Physics (e.g. wave/particle). We may not like those contradictions, but we have no choice but to learn to live with them. Whether the world appears Materialistic or Idealistic depends on how you frame your perspective. Either/Or thinkers are not able to deal with the complexities & contradictions of heuristic evolution, and its hybrid offspring*3.

I wasn't familiar with the Multimodal User Interface (MUI) theory, but after a quick scan it seems reasonable*4. Human perception receives inputs of raw Data from the environment, and converts it into the meaningful information that we call Concepts. The Data represent the concrete Reality outside the Mind in terms of abstract bits of energy (photons), but the brain transforms those "particles" of energy into meaningful integrated images that are not real, but merely maps of reality. It seems that Tallis is criticizing Hoffman for making a distinction between a useful Map and the actual Terrain. :smile:


*1. Heuristic : a trial & error process that produces many imperfect candidates, and selects the ones that survive the rigors of reality to serve as candidates for the next round of trials. This error-ridden method may never reach final perfection, but it gets closer at each step. For example, biological evolution, after billions of trials, has produced the human brain as the epitome of survival fitness. Yet, the brain is still subject to imperfect representations (optical illusions), some of which may be adaptive for pragmatic purposes.

*2. Practical Adaptations are Pragmatic, not Perfect, and not Ideal. They have short-term survival value. Likewise,pragmatic Science never reaches absolute Truth, but it does get incrementally closer to truth.

*3. How hybrids have upturned evolutionary theory :
Hybrids are not an evolutionary bug. They are a feature. That knowledge is changing the way people think about evolution.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/10/03/how-hybrids-have-upturned-evolutionary-theory

*4. Truth and fitness, they claim, are not rival strategies, but rather the same strategy, seen from different perspectives.
https://meaningfulparticipation.org/posts/multimodal-user-interface-theory

Ontological objective idealism has less weaknesses and unlikely to be undermined rather than subjective idealism which again leads to solipsism — invicta

Arguments for or against Idealism are complicated by the several definitions of the term, and variations within those definitions*1 *2. Since I have no formal training in philosophy, I'll have to stick to naive Idealism (the map is not the territory) and naive Realism (there is something out there that our senses are reporting). The objective aspect of both is our shared myths of reality : a> religious stories about an extrasensory spirit realm, and b> scientific reports about the invisible structure of the material world. From Kant to Quant we have been admonished that "Reality is not what you think it is"*3

So I have to be cautious about taking a firm stand on the mushy foundations of reality, especially as revealed by subatomic science. When I take a step on the ground, I expect that it will support my weight. But Quantum physics tells me -- and I only have this knowledge second hand -- that the atoms below are 99% empty space. So the "support" comes from counteracting weak forces between my feel-real shoes and the supposedly real ground. My intuitive model of the ground is solid, even though intellectually I "know" that it is porous. But my mental map of reality "works" most of the time. It's only quantum theorists who must work with an un-real mathematical model of reality, dominated by invisible forces instead of solid matter, and undermined by the interventions of observers .

The Objectivist Creed of modern science aspired to replace divine revelation for perfect knowledge of Reality with a collective consensus on what's what*4. And I am grateful for the harvest of practical insights, due to that divorce from religion. But the Objectivist Myth*5 was watered-down by the new statistical models (mathematical instead of material) of subatomic physics. What used to be fundamental to reality is now known to be a mere possibility prior to our measurement of its realness. Faced with such perversions of Classical Reality, what's a naive boy to do?

So, my personal position on Reality is like a wave/particle : BothAnd*6. The world is not Either Real or Ideal, but a blend of both mental & material aspects. Its wave-nature is continuous & statistical, while its particle-nature is discrete & physical. Reality is whatever works for me at the moment. Ideality is a possible state that exists only as a concept. Like the dream of seeing a man walking on the moon, ideas can become real. :smile:


*1. Objective idealism is a form of metaphysical idealism that accepts Naïve realism but rejects epiphenomenalist materialism, as opposed to subjective idealism denies that material objects exist independently of human perception and thus stands opposed to both realism and naturalism. ___Wikipedia

*2. What are the two types of idealism? :
Thus, the two basic forms of idealism are metaphysical idealism, which asserts the ideality of reality, and epistemological idealism, which holds that in the knowledge process the mind can grasp only the psychic or that its objects are conditioned by their perceptibility.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism
Note -- My interpretation of Hoffman's theory is neither subjective nor objective idealism, but merely that there are practical evolved limits on perception; so he advises : know thy limits.

*3. Reality is not what it seems :
Physicist Carlo Rovelli's book on quantum gravity
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/02/01/512798209/reality-is-not-what-we-can-see

*4. Copenhagen Interpretation :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments, there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

*5, Objectivist Myth :
Scientific Objectivism replaces the prayerful Priest with an empirical Expert
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-objectivist-myth-of-knowing_fig1_254734289

*6. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

IS THE MOON REAL WHEN I'M NOT WALKING ON IT?

So, why can't brains do all their stuff without consciousness?
And why isn't a running internal combustion engine conscious? — bert1

I won't attempt to give a scientific answer to what is essentially a metaphysical question. But I do think the form of an answer will necessarily have something to do with Function. The purpose of a thing is not inherent in the thing, but is assigned to it by a user or observer. For example the function of an automobile is relative to the driver. The driver wants to move from here to there, and makes use of a mechanism, horse powered or ICE powered, to serve his need for conveyance. For the driver, the source of motive power -- and the details of its internal mechanism, organic or inorganic -- is irrelevant to the transportation function. The horse may be conscious, but its own needs are subordinate to the driver's.

Likewise, the function of a human brain is to collect incoming sensory data, then convert it into concepts & meanings that will serve the needs of the body, for survival and for thrival. According to Don Hoffman, the neural system of the brain processes incoming physical information, and transforms it (by magic?) into the metaphysical meanings that some call "consciousness" and others label "illusions". Those mental models are not real. but ideal. However, the serve the purposes of the Self by creating maps of reality for us to navigate by. A tangle of neurons will not serve as a map of the world. Even though the meta-physical map is not the territory, it serves the function of navigation*1 through the real world.

Service of needs & desires is also the Function of Consciousness : to make meanings that serve the intentions of the meta-physical Self (a mental model of the body/mind system). Therefore, like an engine on the garage floor, a brain in a vat, serves no transportation purpose, and being disconnected from the Self-system, is not functionally conscious. The neurons may continue to do "their stuff", but not the intentional stuff of the Self. :smile:


*1. Navigation : the process or activity of accurately ascertaining one's position and planning and following a route.

What are some good ontological/logical arguments for ontological idealism? — Ø implies everything

If, by "Idealism" you mean the rejection of Realism, all Either/Or logical arguments will go round in circles. You can't have overhead mental Ideality without its substrate of material Reality. And a Reality without sentient beings will have no Ideas. Reality knows itself via Ideality : the ability to abstract Concepts from Percepts ; to generalize Universals from Particulars ; to synthesize personal Meanings from impersonal Things. Reality & Ideality go together like matter & aether.

That's why I have resorted to an Intuitive argument that I call BothAnd. For example, Cogito Ergo Sum implies that I am both Mind and Body; both Knower and Known. We can have isolated abstractions only in imagination. :smile:

PS__Your appellation of "zero implies everything" sounds like a BothAnd concept. "Nothing" is meaningless without Something to relate it to. Computer logic is based on the fundamental relationship between All (1) and Nothing (0). Likewise, the concept of "Zero" is merely the opposite end of the statistical spectrum of all possibilities (100%). All things are relative : nothing exists in isolation.

"Nothing exists in isolation. In fact, all beings and phenomena exist only because of their relationship with other beings or phenomena.” ― Jeff Ourvan, Quora

BothAnd :
One sense of “non-dual” is the opposite of Cartesian dualism, in which body & soul are completely different kinds of stuff. But if everything is made of Mind, or Consciousness, or Information — as assumed in Panpsychism — then Mind is simply the natural-but-immaterial function of the material Brain. Quantum theory is a materialistic version of non-duality. It views the world as made of continuous mathematical Fields of potential. Within their defining field, pairs of quantum particles may become entangled, and act as one, or vice-versa, fluid waves may also be discrete particles . Unfortunately, such BothAnd (wave/particle) constructs are difficult for our macro-sensing brains to imagine.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page62.html

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving. — Fooloso4

Yes. Philosophy shouldn't be pinned-down to a narrow job description. Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens, but he focused on one-man-at-a-time. His teachings were more like self-development than political or scientific problem-solving. However, Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science) to Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself". And other philosophers, through the years, have focused their "problem seeking"*1 on particular aspects of the quest for General Wisdom (know-that) and Practical Knowledge (know-how).

For example book-bound Marx asserted that, “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Ironically, if there is a typical personality type for philosophers, it seems to be Introverted or Introspective. Which is not well-suited to changing what's wrong with the world, via political revolutions. Nevertheless, the strong words of bookish thinkers can indeed inspire others to, not just point-out the problems, but to fix them. Yet a forum of brainy introverts talking to shy recluses is not likely to de-constipate the "plugged-up plumbing" of the natural or cultural milieu. :joke:


*1. In his 1977 book Problem Seeking, architect William Pena observed : "you can't solve a problem unless you know what it is". He didn't mean you should go out looking for trouble. Instead, his book on Architectural Programming presented methods for discovering the underlying (fundamental)*2 problems that motivate people to spend time & money to build something new, rather than to hold-on to something old. Those step-by-step procedures are essentially the same as Philosophical & Scientific methods --- e.g. analysis & synthesis.

*2. Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. ___Wiki

Bunge’s ten criticisms of philosophy, — Art48

I too have been disappointed with much of Modern Philosophical Posturing, as compared to Ancient Wisdom Seeking. Especially the linguistic nit-picking of Postmodern academia. Fortunately for me, I have no formal training in philosophy, except for Logic, as a math requirement. Regarding the "intellectual engines of modern civilization", most of my amateur philosophizing is based on the paradoxes dug-up by scientists on the cutting-edge of understanding, such as Quantum & Information theories.

In the Feb/Mar 23 issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living". "Science", as the name implies is in the business of obtaining practical knowledge from the real (material) world. But "Philosophy" is more like "Art", as an expression of ideas & impressions about the ideal (mental) world. Of course, the art of philosophy is supposed to be disciplined enough to sort-out the useful (meaningful) wheat from the useless (trivial) chaff. :smile:

"Finite and infinite are concepts that have significance only in relation to space and time, in that both are infinite, i.e., endless, as well as infinitely divisible. — spirit-salamander

"Infinity" defined as a quantitative measure is a common stumbling block for philosophical forays into transcendent topics. If the context is a space-time bounded world, then an objective quantitative definition is appropriate. But if the context is unbounded open-ended Eternity-Infinity, a subjective qualitative interpretation is necessary*1.

When we are talking about a "demoted deity" in the form of the real world, it's OK to speak of parts relative to the whole. But, if that Creative Power existed prior to the Big-Bang --- before the emergence of finite space-time from a hypothetical undefined realm of statistical possibility/probability --- then the physical limits of space & time do not apply, and the whole is likewise undefinable and indivisible.

Besides, space & time are abstractions that exist only in minds, not in matter*2. Space & Time are imaginary measuring sticks that we overlay on the material world in order to provide chunks of meaning for the mind. Even the beginning-of-time is a human milepost that we use to mark the distinction between Time & Eternity.

As you said, a Space-time deity would be finite in scope, and almost infinitely divisible. Such is the mystery of math, with its never-ending numberline. In that case, Infinity-plus-One is still Infinity. That makes sense only because "infinity" is an ideal definition, not a real physical thing. Likewise, the gap-filling deity we imagine as a defining context for the open-ended Big Bang theory, is an ideal concept, that we may never know in reality. If that hypothetical gap-filler is also the Cause & Creator of reality, then all of its defining properties are abstract qualities. :smile:


*1. Is infinity a quantity? :
Good question. No. Infinity is a limit, which can't be a quantity, and a bound, which can be a quantity.
https://www.quora.com/Is-infinity-a-quantity

*2, How is space time an illusion? :
Locations in space and time, hence, have no identity and can be said to exist only as mathematical conveniences. Quantum theory suggests that locality is an illusion, a byproduct of the decoherence that occurs between quantum waves so that nonlocal effects are damped while local effects are reinforced.
https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/space-and-time-may-be-illusions-1aa71e8de03e

[Title of the OP was changed because it was misleading. It suggested that I was making a positive argument for a God who no longer exists.]
I present a challenge to theism (It is only for dialectical reasons that the challenging argument clings to some basic assumptions of theism): — spirit-salamander

I appreciate the clarification. It allows for philosophical dialog, without getting into political posturing. I too have constructed an alternative god-model for my own worldview, and I enjoy sharing views without getting into condemnations. However, some materialist posters see no need for a god-posit at all. As Feynman advised, in order to avoid feckless hypothetical speculations, "just shut-up and calculate". They accept reality as it appears on the surface, and don't try to look for underlying principles that are not empirically verifiable. But this is a philosophical forum, so we don't calculate, we speculate.

I agree that traditional Theism is inappropriate for our modern world. Therefore, it is indeed due for a philosophical & scientific update. For example, my god-model terminology derives mostly from 21st century Quantum and Information Theories. Moreover, as an alternative to traditional religious Theism, my Deistic god-model is a non-intervening abstract philosophical principle. That's not a concept to inspire hope in the down-trodden masses. Just a way to make sense of some paradoxes & contradictions of our amazing, but imperfect world. Here, I take your list of postulates as an outline for presenting some of my own ideas. As you will see, my theory departs from yours mainly in the last item.


A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.
*** Since the physical world is limited by Entropy, its time to exist must also be limited.

A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin.
*** The Act of Creation is confirmed by BB theory. Only the nature of the Actor remains to be updated. The Genesis myth was based on experience with ruling tyrants in ancient Mesopotamia. Surely, we can come up with a more modern notion of creation and causation.

B 1. Creation from nothing is impossible.
*** Yes, but creation from infinite Potential is not only possible but scientifically credible, since materialistic classical Physics was undermined by statistical Quantum Physics. Mathematics is no-thing, yet it includes all possible values. And the basic elements of physical reality (particles) seem to exist in a never-land state of suspended existence, until realized by an observation. Quantum Fields, Virtual Particles, and Superposition are about as close to nothingness as you can get within Space-time. But they are full of possibilities.

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible.
*** Yes, transformation is what energy does. And Energy could be construed as "transcendent substance" prior to its transformation into mundane Matter. In its Potential states of position, charge, "zero point", etc. Energy is invisible & intangible. For example, a Virtual particle has no charge, but after transformation into a Real particle, it may possess the causal property of charge. We only know that ghostly Energy has passed through, like a tornado in the night, by observing the after-effects.

C 1. God is absolutely simple. Otherwise, He would not be the first and most original principle.
*** Simple = unified or integrated as in a holistic Singularity. I interpret the Big Bang evidence as implying that the Energy Source of Creation was/is a complete infinite Whole, within which at least one Holon (our world) exists. In that case the Source is also the Origin, and being transcendent, a universal Principle instead of a space-time Thing. Note, if necessary, I'll address the definitions of Potential & Holons in another post.

C 2. Accordingly, He has no parts to offer for transformation. Rather, He would have to give Himself completely for this purpose. In fact, in His simplicity, He is so much of one piece that He would be entirely the power that would serve to transform.
*** This supposes a physically limited God. If the whole from which our world emerged was physical/material, it would have a limited supply of substance from which to construct a world. But, if the Whole consists of infinite metaphysical Potential, it would not be diminished by the transformation of infinite Possibility into finite Actualities. That's what happens when a quantum system in statistical superposition transforms into the specific state we know as a Particle. But the infinite Potential (Energy) remains at 100% (second law of thermodynamics).

D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe.
*** I prefer to think of the Creator as a non-physical Principle, similar to abstract Logos. and an infinite Potential, like Chaos (infinite being without finite order).
The math of Statistics assumes a range from 0% to 100%. But, since the math is Ideal, it is not subject to physical laws. You can subtract 10% from 100% over & over without making the whole any less complete.
Quantum Physics uses the concept of an Infinite Potential Well to describe the unlimited mathematical range within physical particles could possibly exist.


PS__I suspect that your demoted deity theory is similar in motivation to my own Whole/Holon theory : to fill the god-gap in Big Bang theory. However, I label my god-model as PanEnDeism, instead of Pantheism or Pandeism.

Non-supernatural Theism :
The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe. Historically, for versions of this theory where God has ceased to exist or to act as a separate and conscious entity, some have used the term pandeism, which combines aspects of pantheism and deism, to refer to such a theology. A similar concept is panentheism, which has the creator become the universe only in part, but remain in some other part transcendent to it, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe

↪Gnomon
It seems to me that you have both a World and a Programmer who made it. What is the space that contains them both ? — green flag

The "space" that contains the program "world" is the mind of the "programmer". It's a dual-aspect Monism. No distinctions, no information, no meaning, no philosophy. A monism without defining distinctions would be a socked-in fog. :smile:

The human Brain is made of matter, which is organized (by natural logical processes) into a Meaning-Seeking machine. So it processes incoming information (data) into abstract concepts that are meaningful to the observer. But, in order to establish a relationship between the observer and its environment, the brain constructs a concept (the Self image) to represent its own subjective perspective*3 on the objective world. No spooky spirits required. — Gnomon
I don't think you've presented a monism. Problematic quotes above. — green flag

Enformationism may not be a formal Monism*1 as you are used to it. It's primarily based on scientific concepts, instead of academic philosophy. So it does not deny the practical (functional) distinction that humans make between Brains & Mind. It merely traces the physical (material) & metaphysical (mental) elements of the Real world back to a single Source. Depending on your personal preferences, you can label that source as mathematical "Singularity" or as metaphysical "G*D". A common metaphorical explanation for a non-intervening Deistic Creator is to imagine that the Big Bang Singularity represents a conception in the Mind of God, and that the evolving material world represents the Body of God. In effect, it's all G*D, all the time.

I can accept a variety of metaphors to make sense of a physical world with Minds that question their own origins. But, my thesis is an extrapolation from 20th century Quantum theory and Information theory, not from any historical philosophical conjectures. However, my notion of Information as the Single Substance of reality is similar to Spinoza's equation of God with Nature (Pantheism)*2. Yet, I diverge from that 17th century speculation, which assumed that Nature was Eternal. Since we now have reasons to believe that the material world of Space-Time had a dramatic Birthday, it seems necessary to make a distinction between what-now-is and what-existed-before the Creation Event of the universe (PanEnDeism). Multiverse theories assume, without evidence, that Physics (matter & energy) is eternally cycling, so the emergence of inquiring minds is routine. Possible : but I prefer the simpler (Ockham's Razor) version of the creation story.

The essential distinction in my non-religious thesis is derived from the radical notion that all-is-Information. Quantum physicist John A Wheeler proposed his "It from Bit"*3 concept, (IT = matter ; BIT = mind) to illustrate his belief that both Matter & Mind are essentially forms of Generic Information (some may call the Enformer : "G*D"). I merely expanded on that notion, of the world as an Information Processor, to conclude that the process was initiated by an intentional Programmer. Processing & Programming are functionally different, but the substance in both cases is the Power to Enform (energy + logic). For example E = MC^2 equates causal Energy with massive Matter. So, I conclude that the Programmer's (Creator's) ideas are also the substance of the Program (creation). Technically, that's a Monistic concept, but it's not a traditional philosophical Ontology. :smile:

PS__I have no formal training in Philosophy, so most of my knowledge of such abstruse concepts comes from professional Scientists. These esoteric ideas are expounded in greater detail in the Thesis & Blog.


*1. Monism :
a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.
___Oxford

*2. Substance Monism :
Substance monism posits that only one kind of substance exists, although many things may be made up of this substance, e.g., matter or mind. Dual-aspect monism ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

*3. It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

↪Gnomon
Thanks. But you haven't addressed my criticism of this kind of quasikantian dualism.
For instance, can you clarify what a self is this theory ? — green flag

The Enformationism thesis may be "quasi-Kantian", but it is not Dualistic. It is instead Monistic, with Information being the universal Single Substance (Spinozan?) of our world, expressed in the forms of both Matter & Mind.

If you are only familiar with Shannon's narrow definition of "Information", the notion that Generic Information (EnFormAction) has universal constructive positive power -- to create all possible forms in the world -- may not make sense. The key is to think of Information as a combination of Energy & Logic. Unfortunately, the Causal power of Information was minimized by Shannon, when he associated it with dissipative Entropy. But other researchers began to label Information as "Negentropy"*1. The opposite of dissipation is en-formation (concentration, integration). Negative Entropy is better known as Energy. So, Information is the pushing power of Energy and the organizing power of Logic (mathematics)*2. If you can conceive of Information in those terms, the rest will make more sense.

Besides its Causal power, Information also has Semantic power, to associate sensory inputs into concepts & meanings. I won't try to explain that in a single post. But I will answer your question about The Self*3. The human Brain is made of matter, which is organized (by natural logical processes) into a Meaning-Seeking machine. So it processes incoming information (data) into abstract concepts that are meaningful to the observer. But, in order to establish a relationship between the observer and its environment, the brain constructs a concept (the Self image) to represent its own subjective perspective*3 on the objective world. No spooky spirits required.

The website & blog go into much more detail, with scientific references, to support the novel notion that Information is the Single Substance of reality. For example, I have coined a neologism to replace "Negentropy" with "Enformy" (opposite of Entropy). In physical terms, Entropy is the erasure of Information, while Enformy is the creation of forms (both material & mental)*4. :smile:


*1. Negentropy :
"many of Shannon's followers found it more intuitively satisfying to put a minus sign in front of the expression for information, making it the opposite of entropy".
Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Mind-Science-Faith-Search/dp/067974021X

*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 causal effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. Like Energy, 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 mathe-matical 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. Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
2. In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That formula is equivalent to your subjective Self/Soul.
3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical & mundane term "Self".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

*4. Excerpt from Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson :
"Thus, Shannon's new information theory reinforced the notion that there is something subjective about entropy and order. . . . not everyone liked the idea of introducing this slippery concept as one of the atoms of creation".
Note --- I suppose the "fire" in the mind is the creative energetic aspect of information processing. The book title may have been inspired by Joseph Campbell's writings. Johnson's book is about the development of Information Theory in the 20th century, beginning with Shannon's problem of correctly communicating ideas, to the Quantum physics of Atomic bomb development at Los Alamos, and on to the study of Information & Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute.

Another way to express the idea is : Ontology is all Mind. — Gnomon
My objection to approaches that want to call everything 'mind' is that only make sense in a world where we see animals with nervous systems and speculate about what it's like to be them or about their umwelt. This applied to us encouraged philosophers to think of themselves as trapped behind a wall of sensory experience, within a mere image of the world on a screen and not the world itself. — green flag

Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that there's something unreal, spooky, or fatalistic about Reality. Instead, sensory experience, including vision, is our only connection to the non-self world, by which we create Mental Maps*1 to guide us through the environment. Those ideal models are sufficiently accurate for way-finding, so they are our window-in-the-wall to the world outside. Even the blind are not "trapped" if they have other senses by which to know what's out there. You are only imprisoned behind your mind-screen if you feel trapped.

I just threw that "all is Mind" summary in there because the topic of this thread is Ontology : the nature of existence. And Quantum physics has undermined mechanical Newtonian physics, with its implicit Materialism, by discovering, at the foundations of Reality, that there are no ultimate Atoms (particles) of matter, only Fields of inter-relationships (Information). Some scientists went on to infer that a Subjective Observer is an integral part of that system of immaterial elements : John A. Wheeler's "It From Bit" theory*2. Which indicated that, not just the Mind, but the World itself is a mental construct. Yet Wheeler's Observer is just a Participant (an avatar in the model), not the creator of the Mind-world. This was a scientific speculation, not a religious assertion. A world-creating Mind is implied, but not specified, by Wheeler's quip.

"Objective" knowledge of material reality is a cultural consensus, not an absolute fact. Ironically, you would never know anything about that "quantum field world" if priest/scientists didn't reveal to you what's beyond the reach of your bodily senses. So, our worldviews are all, to some degree, acts of faith. Yet no one, especially Philosophers, should feel "trapped", merely because their physical senses cannot see the fundamental Fields all around us. The rational mind is what frees us from the solitary confinement of Solipsism. :smile:


*1. Mental Map vs Material World :
This quote comes from Alfred Korzybski, father of general semantics: “A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”. To sum up, our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our own “map”.
http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfolio-Item/the-map-is-not-the-territory/

*2. World of Appearances :
Wheeler's "it from bit" concept implies that physics, particularly quantum physics, isn't really about reality, but just our best description of what we observe. There is no "quantum world", just the best description we have of how things will appear to us.
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

*3. Wheeler: It from bit.
"Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

Agree. However, Hoffman is trying to model reality in terms of "conscious agents." So, while I don't think he specifically denies material reality, he is working on an alternative based on consciousness. He says the hard problem of consciousness was one of the things that motivated his search for an alternative to materialism. — Art48

Yes. As noted, I suspect that Hoffman is leaning toward some form of Idealism. But, I try to cover both bases -- material Realism and mental Idealism -- in one thesis : Enformationism. It's based on the Quantum implication that both Energy (causation) and Matter (malleable substance) are functional forms of Generic Information (power to enform). :smile:

↪Gnomon
I think you need to infinitely nest your Cartesian theatre image. The mini-me needs his own control-room in the skull, with its own screen that shows the first screen. And then mini-mini-me needs... — green flag

Yes. That's why the homunculus theory doesn't explain Sentience. It's a same-thing-all-the-way-down theory. But, what's missing is Transformation from sensory data to meaning in the mind. My Enformationism thesis begins with a Quantum science concept : that Matter & Energy are different functional forms of Generic Information (power to enform ; to cause change ; to transform). Hence, I have inferred that Matter, Energy and Mind are all various instances of Information (relationships ; mathematical ratios ; meanings). So, Cosmos (reality + ideality) is indeed the same-thing-all-the-way-down. But the essential thing is Mind-stuff (information) instead of Material-stuff (atoms in void). Another way to express the idea is : Ontology is all Mind. And that notion opens up a Pandora's Box of infinite possibilities, including mis-interpretations of the Mind-Matter relationship. :smile:

So, says Hoffman, the material world is a bunch of icons in spacetime, a headset, which we use to manipulate reality. Evolution has given us this headset because if we had to manipulate reality directly, we couldn’t. — Art48

Yes. As I understand the thesis, Hoffman is not saying there is no material reality out there, but that all we know about that presumptive*1 reality is the images in our minds. So we humans are somewhat insulated from harsh reality by our reason-enhanced imagination. Ontology is a theory.

Besides the computer icon, another analogy is that our concept of Reality is a simulation : like the ground-based pilots of remote military drones*2. What they see is a low-res simulation of the terrain the drone is flying over*3 -- plus a lot of non-visual information pertinent to the job. Likewise, our visual images are supplemented with data from other senses, such as smell & hearing in order to give us a broad-spectrum overview that is adequate for survival. It's not a perfect bit-for-bit representation of reality, but it's good enough to get the job done. :smile:

*1. Presumptive : conjectured, speculative, notional, theoretical

*2. LOW-RES REALITY SIMULATION

*3. FULL RESOLUTION REALITY

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"