I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple. — Nickolasgaspar

Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics & Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".

Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with an appeal to authority of "its philosophy". I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical belief system known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as-if it's the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra. I have previously pointed-out some examples.

For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science & philosophy. And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. Admittedly, I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. Of the 174 listed in the link below, only Daniel Dennett & Thomas Nagel books are in my personal library. I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae.

However, I came late to philosophy, only a few years ago. And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, including philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of establishment scientific concern. I admit that, due to impertinence, most of your criticisms of my ignorance or idiocy fall on deaf ears. Fortunately, there are a few on this forum with similar interests, that I can dialogue with. So, I remain open to discourse, but not to argue "true science" with you. And, I'm not motivated to seek your approval. :cool:


List of 20th century philosophers :
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/20th-century-philosophers.php

Vienna Circle :
Thus the struggle between metaphysics and scientific world-conception is not only a struggle between different kinds of philosophies, but it is also—and perhaps primarily—a struggle between different political, social, and economical attitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle

The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back :
Preaching, denouncing or shouting ‘Science works!’ won’t help. Neither will throwing around statistics, graphs and charts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00872-w

↪Gnomon
:up: Your posts are definitely improving through time in my humble opinion. Just been reading this interview which I'm sure you will find relevant. — Wayfarer

Thanks. Since I have no formal training in philosophical argumentation, I'm using this forum as a "school of hard knocks". As a child, my opinion was seldom solicited, and it was expected to align with the rather conventional views of my father (with a sixth grade education & fundamentalist indoctrination). So, I reached adulthood with a scarcity of clear ideas of my own, and little confidence in those few I had mulled-over inwardly.

Over the years my philosophical dialogues were primarily within myself. Even in college, anyone who I dared to suggest a non-standard idea to, would usually exhibit expressions of incomprehension. Consequently, at retirement age, when began to write my thesis, I didn't even know what I thought until I saw what I wrote. However, I still see my harmless-but-unconventional ideas reflected back at me, often with the same eye-glaze of incomprehension, or a grimace of acute disgust.

In my own mind, the general information-based thesis is clear & comprehensive. But then I'm viewing it from my own eccentric perspective, founded primarily on little-known "facts" of Quantum & Information theory. Which have turned the common-sense classical worldview upside down. So, I've had to learn the hard way, how to summarize a complex-but-inter-related system in words that convey novel ideas, without seeming to be deranged or dismissive of "settled science". Since the core concepts of Holism & Consciousness are similar those of Eastern religions, I'm forced to deny, A>implications that I've had the wool pulled over my eyes by pop-religion gurus, or B> accusations that I'm in science-denial.

BTW, your link to the Faggin interview, was right on time. It noted the overlooked aspect of reality in conventional Science : the mind of the observer. And, IMHO, that is where Philosophy still has a role to play in modern science. For example, I consider Psychology, Sociology, and the other "soft" sciences to be essentially inwardly-focused philosophical inquiries, with a statistical veneer of hard science. :smile:

3. Metaphysics: Here we try to ask and answer questions about things science takes for granted: What is causality? What are space & time? What is existence? Etc. — Agent Smith

Exactly! Modern Science studies the physical aspects of Nature, by means of their innate "scope" of Consciousness (what we know with). But they take that inwardly focused "lens" for granted, because it is not a material object to be dissected into structural elements. Instead, Consciousness arises from complex systems as a holistic function. It seems to be "aware" of internal neural states, converting their physical patterns into metaphysical meanings.

In the interview (below), linked by , a physicist suddenly realized that something important was being overlooked in the sciences he was studying : the mind doing the examining. Unfortunately, such subjective subjects were tossed out, along with the faith-stained bathwater, as Science emerged from under the yoke of autocratic Religion. :smile:

Consciousness as the Ground of Being :
I was studying neuroscience and biology, and I asked myself: ‘How come that all these books never mention consciousness?’ ___Physicist Federico Faggin ; inventor of the Intel 4004 chip
https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/consciousness-as-the-ground-of-being/

MENTAL SUBJECT . . . . . . VIEWS . . . . . . . PHYSICAL OBJECT

Note -- the metaphysical Mind is a holistic function of physical neuronal systems in the brain

Factually wrong statement by Gnomon. — Nickolasgaspar

Nick, I can save you a lot of time & effort to defend Atheism against Theism, or Physics vs Metaphysics, Science vs Philosophy -- however you frame your besieged belief system.

Just copy & paste all the replies to me from . I've heard it all before. But his, and I assume your, Binary worldview has no place for my personal non-polarized worldview. So, what I'm saying does not compute And my terminology has no place in your vocabulary. Therefore, your castigations bounce off me and return to you. Have a nice day. :smile:

-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!! — Nickolasgaspar

In your prejudicial imagination. :cool:

FWIW, see my reply to :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/678622

I'll leave you with a question: Can metaphysical claims be verified/falsified? — Agent Smith

No. Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. Yet, that's where Philosophy comes in. It picks up where Science leaves off. Science provides pragmatic knowledge about Nature, while Philosophy provides reasonable opinions about Culture (the human aspect of nature). By "reasonable", I don't mean absolutely true facts, but merely ideas, whose logic has been tested in the fires of well-informed disagreement, to remove the dross.

Being "well-informed" though, includes knowledge of how the physical world works, so you can tell the difference between a natural event, and a miracle. That's why Philosophers as far back as Plato & Aristotle doubted the actual existence of the metaphorically useful Greek gods. For example, Ari knew enough about the weather to understand that scary lightning occurred randomly, and not due to vengeful cloud-hopping storm-gods. But they still had to assume the "metaphysical existence" (being qua being) of natural-but-invisible causal principles. Yet, those postulated essences were not susceptible to direct observation, so they were placed in a sub-category, under Physics, of Meta-physics.

We no longer turn to his volume on Physics for information on physical questions. But 2500 years later, we still debate some of the non-physical topics -- such as substance, quality, quantity, and relation -- that he chewed-over in the second volume. He also classified four explanatory conditions — an object's form, matter, efficient cause, and teleology --- that are still applicable today. Nevertheless, philosophy is still not in the business of verifying natural facts. It can only use those ancient methods to separate reasonable beliefs from heart-felt opinions.

So, it's due to my own amateurish philosophical analysis, that I have let go of my childhood belief in the Abrahamic Yahweh-Jesus, and the human-edited & redacted scriptures that are presented as the inspired word of God. Yet, I have never been able to rationalize the existence of a contingent world without a First Cause of some kind. That primary, efficient, and final Cause is inherently Preter-natural, hence invulnerable to natural science, which must be satisfied with useful normal or natural facts. But meta-physical philosophy is not bound to physical facts, because it only seeks for logically necessary concepts. Those essential "truths" are Logically Verifiable, but not Physically Falsifiable.

So, no. Metaphysical claims cannot be "verified/falsified" by physical methods. But, they can be proven for logical soundness by rational methods. And prior assumptions, or degrees of belief, can be tested for probability via Bayesian statistics. But, yes. I do include a Creative Cause in my worldview, to at least theoretically explain the "something from nothing" (space-time from infinity-eternity?) issue raised by the scientifically plausible, but not physically provable, Big Bang theory. :nerd:


A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true. In Leibniz's phrase, a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100226735

Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural ; metaphysical
Note -- even Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are beyond the scope of physical verification.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Logical Verification :
A formal proof is a logical argument expressed in a logical formalism. . . .
In contrast, an informal proof is what a mathematician would normally call a proof. These are often carried out on a blackboard, and are also called “pen-and-paper proofs.”
https://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs1951x/static_files/main.pdf

-Again posting poetic takes on metaphysics by scientists doesn't help your case. — Nickolasgaspar

I'll just point-out that I'm not making a scientific case. Besides, Atheism is a belief in Absentia. It is not based on scientific facts, but on the absence of physical evidence, which is literally & figuratively immaterial to a metaphysical concept. By "meta-physical" I refer to that which is non-physical (e.g. mental ; cultural), hence immaterial to scientific methods, which specifically eschews subjective phenomenology (personal experience).

BTW, my position is not anti-science, but pro-philosophy. I'm also not a Theist, so the typical anti-theism arguments miss their imaginary target. IMHO, Philosophy is more of an art than a science. So demanding reductive scientific evidence for a holistic concept is like, requiring Picasso to justify his odd imagery with empirical facts. Did he really see the world that way? It doesn't matter. :smile:

Legitimate Metaphysics :
Naturalized metaphysicians defend the thesis that science licenses meta-
physics, such that only metaphysical results that are based on the best science
are to be considered legitimate.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11149/1/OMR_Does_Science_License_Metaphysics.pdf

Metaphysics as the Science of Essence :
the central task of metaphysics is to chart the possibilities of being, with a view to
articulating the structure of reality as a whole, at its most fundamental level.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/06/Lowe/Lowe.pdf

-Well the definition is wrong or vague at best. First of all there isn't such a thing as A scientific method. — Nickolasgaspar

The quote referred to "scientific method[s}" to contrast with "philosophical methods". Note, I added the "s" to improve the parallel, and to make you feel better. :joke:

The fact is that the formation of the universe was not a creation act...at least we can not make that claim. — Nickolasgaspar

On what basis do you make that factual claim?

-Cherry picking on Stephen's poetic irony? You do see the irony in his words.....don't you??? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, But I also see the acknowledgement that the BB could be construed as a creation event. Which is why Einstein, among others, resisted the idea. He had assumed that the universe was self-existent. But was forced to change his mind. Some scientists quibbled that the BB was not an "explosion in space" but an "expansion of space'. But even that clarification avoided the issue of how space came to be. Had it always existed somewhere in the Great Beyond, or was it "created" from nothing? Since I know nothing about the Great Before, like most non-specialists, I accept the BB philosophically & metaphorically as a "creation event". Besides, all other pre-BB explanations, such as Multiverses, are also Creation Myths. :smile:

“The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can't grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.”
___A. Einstein
https://www.azquotes.com/author/4399-Albert_Einstein/tag/creation

"The Big Bang Is Hard Science. It Is Also a Creation Story."
___Barry Powell

indeed, I placed them backwards. — Nickolasgaspar

Apparently, you are going to place everything in this topic backwards. Are you just being contrarian? :cool:

You want to, in a sense, incorporate the best of both (opposing) worlds, that's what we recognize as the aurea mediocritas (the golden mean), in your quest to gain a complete understanding of reality. You need both halves (the yin & the yang). — Agent Smith

Yes. However, the concept of BothAnd didn't come from ancient philosophy, but from my research on ubiquitous Information. Like some pioneering scientists, I concluded that the fundamental substance of Reality is not Dualistic (energy + matter, or mind + matter), but Monistic (it's all Information in various forms : mind + energy + matter + everything else). So, the essence of BothAnd is Monism. The "BothAnd" label is simply an indicator that truth is not polarized, but a continuum. :smile:

However, as I've always been concerned about, doesn't your Both/And Principle violate 2 laws of logic viz. the law of the excluded middle and the law of noncontradiction (given a proposition p, either p is true or ~p is true but not the case that both p and ~p are true/false at the same time). As an illustration, either theism is true or atheism is true, but both can't be true and both can't be false. There can be no middle ground betwixt theism and atheism. — Agent Smith

The "excluded middle" and "non-contradiction" rules are presuming that you have access to absolute all-encompassing Truth. But the BothAnd rule assumes that we humans are all limited to small bits & pieces of perfect Platonic Truth. That's why I compare it to Einstein's Relativity : the truth you see depends on your "frame of reference", your limited perspective. So, for us earth-bound truth-seekers, it's all "middle ground". :cool:

The point is we can't discuss metaphysics for it's impossible to justify any claims we make therein (pure speculation is all that we can manage). . . .
By the way, Nagarjuna's tetralemma is known as the middle way because it rejects/negates extremes. — Agent Smith

Since I consider Meta-Physics to be the sole purview of Philosophy, I wouldn't agree that we shouldn't discuss non-physical (e.g. mental) topics. What else are we going to talk about, the weather? Even so, we cannot make any absolute claims about non-verifiable or non-falsifiable bits of truth. Philosophy can only allow us to get "Closer to Truth". As the link below notes, despite our best efforts to "know the mind of god", philosophers, by "exploring the deepest questions" can only hope to improve their own personal understanding. Beware of prophets who claim to reveal the absolute Truth. However, the Enformationism thesis is intended to suggest a way to approximate a Theory of Everything.

The rejection of extremes is definitely akin to the BothAnd view. However, it's statistically possible that the balance point of Harmony could be at one extreme. For, example, a rule against torturing babies may be as far as possible away from Sadism. But such clear (radical) oppositions are rare. :nerd:

Closer to Truth :
the greatest thinkers exploring the deepest questions
https://www.closertotruth.com/

What's the Point of Philosophy? :
“It is suggested that the intrinsic point of doing philosophy is to establish a rational consensus about what the answers to its main questions are. But it seems that this cannot be accomplished because philosophical arguments are bound to be inconclusive,”
https://qz.com/1313616/whats-the-point-of-philosophy-a-new-philosophy-paper-says-there-isnt-one/

The Mind of God is a 1992 non-fiction book by physicist Paul Davies. Subtitled The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, it is a whirlwind tour and explanation of theories, both physical and metaphysical, regarding ultimate causes. Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."

The Enformationism thesis is a sort of Theory of Everything (TOE), in the sense that "X" is supposed to be the cosmic All, of which our world is a small part. But it is not a scientific model of reality, and it does not claim to be the absolute Truth. Instead, it is merely a framework for my personal under-standing of the enigmatic world I found myself wandering in, like a stranger in a strange land, as an unfledged babe. It's also a response to the babble of rival theories-of-ultimate-reality -- religious & scientific -- that only added to the mystery.
BothAnd Blog, post 11
Note -- "X" can be imagined as G*D, Logos, Programmer, Creator, The All, The One, etc. Sadly, as the part cannot know the whole, we may never know the mind of "X" for sure. But we can guess.

INFLUENCES ON PERSONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE

-Two issues. Naturalism is not one thing. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism..not Philosophical Naturalism. — Nickolasgaspar

Perhaps. But, since this is a philosophical forum, I'm referring to the position defined in the quote below. So, there's not much distinction between them. :smile:

Philosophical Naturalism :
naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy

Now, In science the big bang event is not labeled as "creation"
(since it would imply extra agencies) but as "formation" so there was no real shock caused by that observation. — Nickolasgaspar

I have been surprised at how many prominent scientists have referred to the BB as a "creation event". You can Google some of their quotes. :smile:

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]." ___ Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" __ Stephen W. Hawking

- [1] Anthropic principles and [2] statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy). — Nickolasgaspar

I assume your comment got [1] & [2] backward. :wink:

ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
Book Review of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

Have you ever considered that you could be, by limiting yourself to a binary system (for vs. against), alloying the two belligerent sides on any issue, you could very well be committing the false dichotomy fallacy or the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy. — Agent Smith

Apparently, you have misunderstood the point of the BothAnd philosophy. In practice, the BothAnd principle considers all possibilities between 0 & 1. But tries to find the point of balance & harmony. It is intended to be an alternative to the typical unbalanced binary all-or-nothing Either/Or posture. But it doesn't prescribe a position in the exact middle of the range of views. Each observer will have personal reasons for emphasizing certain aspects over others. However, it is generally aligned with Aristotle's Golden Mean, and Buddha's Middle Path, and Taoism's Yin/Yang. As a rule-of-thumb, it simply means "nothing to excess". :smile:

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.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

For instance, in the debate between atheism and theism, is it possible that, instead of trying to unify the two into a whole, you could reject both and contemplate on a third alternative which is neither theism nor atheism, and not some amalgamation of the two (the middle), but something else entirely. Have you come across Nagarjuna's terralemma? — Agent Smith

Yes, The BothAnd principle does seek a third option, which is the balance point between excess & deficit. I'm not familiar with "terralemma", but having to juggle four alternatives, instead of two or three, may violate Ockham's Razor. The term "BothAnd" merely acknowledges that most philosophical debates tend to force participants to defend one extreme or the other. By contrast, "moderation in all things" advises us to compromise, so as to avoid mutual annihilation, or a Mexican stand-off. :joke:

PS__This very thread illustrates the Either/Or policy. If someone proposes a moderate position, others will immediately attack it as-if it was a totalitarian rejection of their position. My stance on the god question is in the middle : Theism - Deism - Atheism. But a Theist would consider me to be an Atheist, and vice-versa.

Why Compromise? :
Like the philosophy of Pragmatism, the BothAnd principle, requiring accommodation to seemingly extraneous factors, could be dismissed as a weak policy of compromising eternal principles for temporary goals. But that sneer misses the point of taking the broader view, seeking harmony & balance instead of victory & triumph. So, the idea is to make practical concessions to the fact that each person, social group, nation, planet, and galaxy is but a small part of a greater whole.
BothAnd Blog, post 2

Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshiped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

I will look out for the writing of Dr Stenger because it is worth looking at the idea of the new atheism from a wider angle. — Jack Cummins

You will find Stenger very clear in his arguments, because he takes a firm stand on Naturalism. You could even call his inflexible position Dogmatism. If you agree with his Naturalist premises though, you must agree with the logic of his Atheist conclusions. But philosophers tend to be open to other interpretations of Nature, that may not be of interest to empirical scientists. Especially, regarding Ontology and questions about "something from nothing".

Naturalism takes the existence of this physical world for granted. So the scientific evidence for a specific "creation event" came as a shock. But, they have adapted their belief in eternal Nature, to imagine explanations for a time-before-time, when our knowable world didn't exist as we know it. Yet, Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are simply extensions of their original Naturalist premises across the Big Bang abyss into the unknowable what-if.

Ironically, the Wiki quote below says he also used a statistical probability argument, for which the data must be imagined, to prove that our world is nothing special. Hence, not created by an omniscient deity. However, other scientists have used similar anthropic logic to prove just the opposite. So, apparently, the Las Vegas odds are in favor of the "house", who determines the odds (premises) you will play with. So, are you going to play by house-always-wins rules, or your own personal reasoning? If you are a Theist, Stenger will challenge your assumptions. But, his own presumptions are also subject to philosophical questioning. :smile:


Stenger was an advocate of philosophical naturalism, skepticism, and atheism. He was a prominent critic of intelligent design and the aggressive use of the anthropic principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

The anthropic principle is the principle that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in the particular type of universe capable of developing and sustaining sentient life. ___Wikipedia

Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218097.The_Anthropic_Cosmological_Principle

↪Gnomon
What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power". — Agent Smith

Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?

Based on the sub-quantum sciences and information theories, I have concluded that Potential exists in the same sense that mental Information (ideas ; thoughts ; meaning) exists : as Ideal Forms. And AFAIK, Meaning exists only in Minds. Although, probably to avoid confusion with humanoid Greek gods, Plato tended to avoid personal terms, such as "Mind", his "Ideal Forms" were clearly non-physical abstractions equivalent to ideas or definitions in a human mind. But he didn't specify whose mind, except to imply that his hypothetical impersonal Logos was the ultimate source of all mental attributes. Some, less scrupulous, later philosophers have interpreted his Ideal realm as the "Mind of God".

For the same reason, I refer to the Mind, in which the mathematical Singularity was conceived, by various descriptive but non-personal names -- beginning with Logos, which is indeed an imaginary "higher power". Materialists refer to the same hypothetical Ultimate Source of our orderly world with "invented" abstract models : Multiverse, Many Worlds. Yet, they are portrayed as mindless impersonal accidental systems of energy, matter, & laws. In which case, they have no explanation for the emergence of the non-physical non-things that are of highest importance to mortal humans : Life, Mind, Ideas, Meanings, Feelings, Reasons, Love, etc.

Our world does indeed seem to be self-organizing (bottom-up evolution), requiring no divine intervention to correct its course. Once the evolutionary process gets started, "it proceeds naturally". But, unlike pragmatic scientists, philosophers are also interested in Ontology (being). So, they ask impractical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing"? And Multiverse theories just take existence for granted, even though non-being is just as likely. So, the beginning of Being is an open question. Since my thesis is based on Information, I like to use computers as a metaphor for the real world. A computer program is self-organizing, and works from the bottom-up, from original algorithm to final output. And it requires an external Mind to build the computer, to input the algorithm, to define the problem to be solved, and to push the Start button.

So, like Plato, I try to avoid attributing personal attributes to an abstract concept, beyond my ken. I merely imagine a job description for the "Programmer" (the Intelligence, the Enformer), who input the Energy & Laws (the algorithm) to initiate the smooth-running & creative & progressive process that we call Evolution. :nerd:


Potentiality and actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note -- Potential exists as a mental concept, not a material object

What is the relation of Plato's Forms to things? :
For Plato, Forms or Ideals (eidos ; ideas) are essences or originals of qualities or things.

Because Plato managed to do something THAT NO BODY ELSE HAVE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS PLANET at least in his scale. . . . . Namely He spoke about the invisible abstract world without the use of advanced technology or through Deamons(Magic). . . .He described something that only advanced technology today can some times prove that exists. He spoke about the blue prints of this universe. He described the world of IDEAS a world that is stable in contradiction to our world where everything are subjected to degradation and death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-of-Platos-form-to-things
Note -- empirical scientists don't do essences; that is left up to impractical philosophers.

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Programmer vs Creator vs Recycler :
Admittedly, the hypothetical Cosmic Creator or Prime Programmer of this thesis is nothing more than a job description, and we can imagine a variety of office-holders to fill the prescribed roles. For those who prefer a transcendent ultimate entity, an unimaginable deity like Allah or Brahman would fill the bill. For others, more modernistically & humanistically inclined, a clean-cut white-haired Architect, as in the Matrix movie, might suffice to symbolize the Designer. Or for those who prefer a more abstract and impersonal concept, a Multiverse of eternally cycling energy, creating a variety of material forms out of nothing more substantial than the power-to-enform, might sound more scientific. But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality. Which of these role-models would best suit this new worldview for the 21st century, wherein Reality is founded upon immaterial yet potent information?
BothAnd Blog, post 4

Self‐organization is a core concept of Systems Science. It refers to the ability of a class of systems (self‐organizing systems (SOS)) to change their internal structure and/or their function in response to external circumstances.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_475
Note -- SOS are able to evolve to suit changing environments. But they must be designed to do so. Self-organization doesn't happen accidentally. Presumably, what Darwin called "Natural Selection" is a programming function, like a "subroutine".

Abiogenesis may lead to evolution but evolution does not lead to abiogenesis — Tom Storm

Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?

This notion of Causal Abstraction should be compatible with some hypothetical Mathematical Universe and Anthropic Principle conjectures. So, I assume the proponents must imagine that "abiogenesis" was originally an abstract mathematical-logical definition or algorithm of some kind. Of course, MUH is a controversial concept, and the only supporting evidence, so far, is logical consistency. So, I don't take it literally.

But something along those lines would answer some of the fundamental Origin-of-Everything questions. One of which is : how could any material object (not to mention any living thing) survive the holocaust of a Cosmic scale eruption of space-time-energy-laws?? Perhaps the big bomb was merely a mathematical abstraction itself. And we only imagine it in familiar terms of physical explosions, such as those in Ukraine. :smile:

Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. . . .
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". . . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
Note -- the virtual reality of the Matrix was a mathematical structure (simulation), that its inhabitants accepted as real.

Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. — Tom Storm

Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.

Yet even that evolutionary cosmology ran into mathematical infinities in the minuscule Planck Time, near the creation event we now call the Big Bang. Even so, theorists like Allan Guth & Andrei Linde subdivided the BB era into even tinier fractions of a second. Yet, they still haven't reached the Holy Grail of explaining "something from nothing". All theories to-date stop short of the beginning-of-the-beginning : asymptotic to infinity.

So, the field remains open, even for philosophical conjectures. Such as where did the initial energy & laws originate? FWIW, my amateur summary of the phases of evolution is pasted below. And Life emerged in the middle, at step seven. Presumably, because the potential for Life was already programmed in the First Cause. But, by whom? :nerd:

Charles Darwin's hunch about early life :
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201110-charles-darwin-early-life-theory

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
The problem with inflation isn't the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=7df51ea1b45e

Phases of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies (consciousness)
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Start the clock of Time
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws (the evolutionary Program)
0. Infinity :
Omni-potence, Omni-science,?

Note --- Hume : "like causes like"
nothing in the effect that was not potentially in the cause
e.g Life from Life & Mind from Mind

Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism. — Agent Smith

To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.

However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. And that is the point the Creationists hammer on. Some modern theologians have given-up the outdated notion of special creation of each "kind", as described in Genesis. But, they still discern the necessity for an "intelligence", of some kind, to "design" the program of creative evolutionary progression. I'm no longer a theist, but I too, infer a logical role for a Programmer to map-out a scheme, whereby an almost infinite universe could be produced from the DNA-like information in a tiny, Planck scale, bit of potential energy & instructions for causing Matter & Mind to evolve over time, from almost nothing, in-the-beginning. The odds of that happening by Chance, seem more than infinite-to-one.

I understand that defenders of Scientism may feel justified, by Darwin's "Fact", in their dogged struggle against dogmatic Religious Creationism. But, my position is somewhere in the middle, between Cosmic Accident and Special Creation. The only way to know for sure how & why the world began & developed as it did, would require direct revelation from the Originator. I assume that's why various prophets, over the centuries, have claimed to be conduits for divine inspiration. But, I find their diverse & contradictory stories to be unbelievable, as the word of God. So, I have been forced to develop my own patchwork theory of creation & evolution, cobbled-together from bits & pieces of plausible information. It's a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact or theory. Yet, it serves my personal need for a comprehensive worldview. And it all comes down to one simple fact of nature : Information (the power to enform) is fundamental & ubiquitous in the real world. :nerd:


Evolution as fact and theory :
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Special Creation :
In creationism, special creation is a belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Glossary

Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

To cut the long story short, scientism, if it means science is about truths, is completely baseless. Science isn't about reality, it's about constructing best explanations of reality and that's a different story altogether. — Agent Smith

I agree. Science is about provisional facts. But some of us still feel the need for some ultimate arbiter of Truth. That feeling may be the same imperative need that motivated the ancient prophets, who tried to go over the head of irascible autocratic kings, by appealing to a King of Kings. In this case though, the Truth-giver is imagined as a sort of a collective hive-mind, composed of officially-frocked scientist priests. Anyway, for the prophets of Absolute Truth, there is no room for independent-minded, woo-mongering, uncertain, flakey philosophers. :joke:


Why Science Is Not Final Arbiter of Truth :
For far too long, science has been shrouded in a cloak of unquestionable authority as the final arbiter of all knowledge (except, of course, when the research has been funded by business, which for some makes it necessarily suspect).

* What drives us onward in the work of science is precisely the sense that there are truths out there to be discovered, truths that once discovered will form a permanent part of human knowledge.--Steve Weinberg, 2001 (1)
* ...all scientific knowledge, however acquired, is inherently provisional.--Ian Tattersall, 2008 (2)
* It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3)
* Science is not about final truth or "facts"; it is only about continually testing and trying to falsify our hypotheses, until they are extremely well-supported.--Donald P. Prothero, 2007 (4)
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2681

What is this concept of ‘god’? That is my starting question if the OP is asking about possible proof. — I like sushi

Apparently, he was not questioning any particular god-concept, but merely the almost universal notion of some transcendent power over the world. Most of the world's religions hold that their supernatural authority (Lord) must be worshiped in order to receive blessings, or to avoid punishments. I suspect it's that intervening (blessing & cursing) Western (Abrahamic) god-model that the OP assumes may require some empirical evidence in a skeptical age. Almost all popular religions teach that their god, if properly motivated, can override Nature, and sometimes even human actions, on their behalf. That's the one I replied to in the negative. Empirical science has no evidence, one way or the other, about such extra-mundane beliefs.

Before the advent of modern science, most people were mystified by the vagaries of Nature, which seemed as unpredictable, mercurial, & capricious as the behavior of their human leaders. But, there are other, more philosophical, and mostly Eastern (TAO), notions of transcendent power, that make no claims of placatable deities. In those cases, the deity or deities were presumed responsible for both the good and the bad events in the world (Good & Evil). Hence, a Stoic attitude was the best way to think about the inexplicable positive or negative effects of Nature on human welfare. Ironically, such apathy is almost indistinguishable from our modern concept of Nature as an automatic mechanism. Consequently, our scientists feel no qualms about tinkering with dangerous natural processes, in order to make them more agreeable to human wishes.

Unfortunately, Stoicism & Scientism, are not very attractive to the average human, who is more inclined to pray for instant & personal help, rather than to wait for human ingenuity to learn to control tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, plagues, insurrections, civil wars, and so forth, with technology instead of magic. Those more philosophically inclined though, may still find the general notion of First Cause, or Cosmic Force, or Tao helpful to make sense of a bewildering world. From that cosmic perspective we are all parts of a universal Whole.

Since the Cosmos as-a-whole is "more than the sum of its parts: it is both Immanent & Transcendent. So, you can call it "GOD", or "TAO", or "LOGOS", or simply "Nature", as you please. However, there will still be no empirical evidence for that Holistic concept. The affirmation is merely philosophical, rational, & theoretical. So, the answer to the OP is still negative. :cool:


Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction: as a powerful, human-like,
___Wikipedia

Stoic physics :
The Stoics often identified the universe and God with Zeus, as the ruler and upholder, and at the same time the law, of the universe. The Stoic God is not a transcendent omniscient being standing outside nature, but rather it is immanent—the divine element is immersed in nature itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_physics

↪Gnomon
Thanks for the explanation. The two sides of a debate could thrash out the sticking points, identify where they disagree and come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to settle their differences. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's the theory. But, in practice, the core disagreement may be so wide & rigid that mutuality is impossible. When that happens, I call it a "political" dispute, instead of a "philosophical" dialogue. On this forum, the core issue seems to be focused on the authority of Science, envisioned as having monolithic dominion over certain kinds of questions, including "norms" & "values", but especially concerning Metaphysics.

For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church used Aristotle's & Ptolemy's physics & metaphysics as the final authority to settle dissension within its ranks. Today, Ari is out of favor, and Ptolemy is discredited. So capital "s" Science has taken their place as ultimate arbiter, at least for believers in doctrinaire Scientism. In general, that absolute trust in empirical Science, as opposed to theoretical Philosophy, was mandated by proponents of Logical Positivism (aka Logical Empiricism). Ironically, that movement has boldly crossed-over into the "Magisterium" of Religion. Hence, it seems to serve as a sort of religion-substitute for its adherents.

Although they may not realize that they have been indoctrinated with an anti-philosophy attitude, a few posters on this forum feel that their mission is to root-out heretics, who insist on defying the sovereignty of Science, by delving into Metaphysics, and by insisting that there is more to Reality (e.g. Mind) than just Matter & Physics. Therefore, it's that "sticking point" which blocks some attempts to reach "mutually acceptable agreements". Undaunted, some of us soldier on, buoyed by faith in FreeWill & Reason, to explore the meta-physical mysteries of our world, and especially the human Mind. :smile:

PS__Disclaimer : These are just my personal opinions, not those of The Philosophy Forum.


Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values. . . .
In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Logical positivists denied the soundness of metaphysics and traditional philosophy; they asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed meaningless.
http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm

So I'm wondering what is gained by losing the distinction between conscious and not conscious. — Daemon

Good question! I assume that Panpsychists are probably trying to unify the traditional mind/matter dualisms, by assuming that both are merely emergent forms of a universal "substance" or "essence: Mind, which is best known in its manifestation as Consciousness. I agree with that motivation, but I personally take a slightly different track. A common retort to notions of universal Consciousness is to ridicule the idea of a conscious atom or grain of sand. Another problem, as you noted, is to make a distinction between Conscious & Subconscious mental processes.

So, in my own attempts to understand how conscious Mind could evolve from mindless Matter, I merely reversed order of primacy. Many philosophers have found the notion a universal Mind reasonable. So, to present it as a philosophical principle instead of a religious doctrine, I substitute the more technical-sounding term "Information". The word originally referred to the contents of a human mind in the form of intangible Thoughts & Ideas & Feelings. But Claude Shannon stripped the word of its conscious connotations, and defined it as an empty container for any meaning you want to put into it. That abstract definition works well for the purposes of programming general-purpose computers, but not so good for the self-programming & self-conscious human mind.

My thesis tracks the evolution of the human mind back to the original Singularity (imagined as a creative evolutionary program), and even one step farther to a hypothetical "Programmer", traditionally known by philosophers as the generic "First Cause". And the common "substance" all the way up is generic "Information" (EnFormAction ; the power to enform). Which takes on many real forms along the way : Potential, Energy, Forces, Mass, Matter, and Mind. For those who are not familiar with cutting-edge Information theory -- in Physics & Philosophy -- that scenario will seem even more ridiculous than the mystical-sounding Panpsychism theory. But, I prefer to call it "Information Realism". It retains the distinction between Conscious Minds & insensible Matter, but unifies them as diverse forms of evolutionary emergence back to a common ancestor, the hypothetical Prime Mind. :nerd:

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Consciousness : Emergent or Fundamental?
Most scientific and religious worldviews take the ontological status of Consciousness for granted. But when those belief systems are in conflict, their unstated presumptions are key to resolving the problem. Modern Science typically assumes, as an unproven axiom, that consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes. In other words, the human mind is a product of brain processes. And that hypothesis of mind as mechanical output makes sense from the the perspective of philosophical Materialism. But most religions are based on the principle of Divine Consciousness or Spirit or Will as the primordial creative force of the world. Unfortunately, centuries of debate have shown that it will never be easy to resolve such a stark black & white opposition of opinions.

Philosophy, though, is undaunted by irresistable forces and immovable objects. It thrives on head-knocking controversies. A recent post on the Quora Forum formulated this general topic as a technical question : " is consciousness a fundamental property of the universe like gravity . . . ?" In other words, is mind essential to reality instead of an accidental emergence? Or restated in religious terms, did God create the material world by simply imagining it? Put another way, the question may be posed as "What is the basis of reality, matter or consciousness?" Here, it sounds more like a functional distinction between shape-shifting intangible Energy and stable palpable Matter, or like the difference between Mind and Body.
BothAnd Blog, post 7

You did mention in a previous post, adversarial collaboration but I'm not sure how much of that is just talk or hand waving. Instead of trying to make opposing sides join hands, isn't it better to let them go their separate ways and just wait & watch; whichever side gets it (the truth that is) is to be awarded a Nobel Prize. If both reach the finish line simulataneously, twice the fun, oui? — Agent Smith

This forum is supposed to be a meeting place for philosophical dialogue. and the Site Guidelines say : "Don't start a new discussion unless you are: a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you." No-one is trying to force "opposing sides to join hands". Instead, each side is allowed to present an argument, pro or con, regarding the topical question or comment. For an engagement to work though, it takes two to tango.

Unfortunately, some posters get stuck on the "adversarial" step, and never make it to the "collaboration" station. So, they try to shut the door to further discussion, by demanding concession to a specified authority. But that tactic seldom works when there are strong motives on both sides. Some of the forum's longest-running threads are also the most contentious. So, the failure to communicate, or to "reach the finish line simultaneously" may be an indication of serious philosophical or political polarization. And "adversarial collaboration" requires identifying "diagnostic points of divergence", and a willingness to reach an agreement. The divergent topics are pretty clear, but the agreement stage may be a long time coming.

So, I'm not holding my breath, waiting for a break-through. After all, we are still debating some of the same topics that Plato & Aristotle raised 2500 years ago : "God", "Consciousness", "Free Will", etc. There's a common aphorism : "It's the journey, not the destination that matters.". Which acknowledges that you may never reach your desired destination. That's why I'm not trying to convert anyone to my personal worldview. Instead, by submitting my perspective to opposing views, I can learn it's deficiencies & weaknesses. As Nietszche said, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". :joke:

Philosophical dialogue is a mutual inquiry based on the principle that the more points of view there are, the better we understand what there is to understand. There are no winners and no losers - it is open, based on collaboration.
https://lepole.education/en/philosophy/32-practice-of-philosophy.html?start=4

adversarial collaboration rests on identifying the most diagnostic points of divergence
between competing theories, reaching agreement on precisely what they predict, and then designing
experiments that directly test those diverging predictions.
science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6545/911

↪Gnomon
The floor is yours. Say something. — I like sushi

Thanks, but I've already given my reply to the OP. Other, than that, I'm letting Voltaire and Einstein speak for me. Their personal opinions on the topic are not scientific facts, but philosophical inferences. :smile:

↪Gnomon
Asking why people believe in a ‘deity’ is not exactly defining what a ‘deity’ is in any reasonable manner. That is my point. It is like skipping the question ‘what happened before the bog bang’ and jumping straight into details of ‘before the big bang’. — I like sushi

Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? That list would include the "great skeptic" Voltaire.

Speaking of "smart people", is it not interesting that Albert Einstein often used the word "god" in reference to the unsolved mysteries of the world? Obviously, he is not referring to the various popular definitions of gods & God. Wouldn't you like to know what all the fuss is about, before you begin to dissect the general concept of deity into specific "details". Is the OP question a legitimate topic for discussion on a philosophy forum?

Once we have established that there is some reasonable basis for the plethora of religious ( celestial superheroes) & philosophical (First Cause) cosmologies, we can take those reasons seriously. What is common to all of them? Only then, can we treat the OP topic with respect. After all, it's asking about "scientific grounds", not "scriptural" or "emotional" grounds for the widespread god-concept among humanity. What is it about the real world that causes people to look beyond their physical senses for a universal Cause? :smile:


"I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker."
___Voltaire

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
___Voltaire

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
___Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
___Albert Einstein

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
___Albert Einstein

There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. — I like sushi

Actually, it's not that simple. For the reductive methods of empirical science, there is no way to analyze a Holistic concept into its constituent parts. Because, by definition, a Whole is more than the sum of its parts. That's not really a "shortfall" for physical Science, though. But it's an opportunity for theoretical Philosophy to pick-up the slack. Actually, there is a new approach that some call "Holistic Science" (HS), but is better known as "Systems Science" (SS). Unfortunately, like Philosophical conjectures, the conclusions of HS & SS are unlikely to be conclusively proven by empirical evidence*1. Human beliefs will always remain beyond the scope of standard scientific methods.

Regrettably, non-reductive methods are often indiscriminately ridiculed as "pseudoscience". Nevertheless, SS remains a useful approach for the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology & Sociology, which seldom produce final "proven" Facts. What they do offer is rational insights into confusing complex systems. Ironically, the holistic systematic procedures used are almost indistinguishable from the traditional methods of philosophical "thought experiments". Therefore, they could conceivably be applied to such perennial stumper questions, such as "what existed before the Big Bang", or" why do people believe in an invisible deity". :smile:

Holism in science :
Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Systems science :
To systems scientists, the world can be understood as a system of systems. The field aims to develop interdisciplinary foundations that are applicable in a variety of areas, such as psychology, biology, medicine, communication, business management, technology, computer science, engineering, and social sciences. . . .
The best known research institute in the field is the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States, dedicated to the study of complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science

A Theory of Almost Everything :
Santa Fe Institute, the self-anointed headquarters of complexity. ... is our best means of distinguishing science from pseudo-science.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/01/books/a-theory-of-almost-everything.html

*1. String Theory & Loop Quantum Gravity are usually considered legitimate Science, even though their conjectures are unlikely to yield any empirical confirmation in our lifetime. Perhaps the Santa Fe Institute, as it gains legitimacy, will be emboldened to take-on the ultimate Systems questions about the conditional existence of the universe. Until then, that job will fall to non-institutional philosophers.

A "restatement" of (Hegel's) dialectics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic or more generally dualistic monism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ... But why reinvent the wheel, Gnomon? How does your variation on this theme improve on Laozi, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates/Plato ... Fichte, Hegel, Marx/Engels, Bookchin ...? Or the likes of Advaita Vendata? :chin:
Btw, your references to "Relativity" and "Superposition" are pseudo-scientistic non sequiturs which do not help make your case. — 180 Proof

When I first started posting on this forum I noticed that you seemed to know a lot more about the history of philosophy than I do. So, I thought I might learn something from you. But I eventually learned that most of your replies to my posts can be summed-up in two words : "boo" & "hiss". Apparently, there is something about my idiosyncratic personal worldview, or my way of expressing it, that offends you viscerally.

I've never been able to understand exactly what the sore point is, except that perhaps I don't pay homage to some authoritative scientists & philosophers, as listed in your post. I'll admit that I can't help being ignorant of a lot of the history of philosophy. In college, I took basic courses in all the major disciplines of Science. Yet the only philosophy course I took was "Logic", and that was a Math requirement. Consequently, I have a better-than-average understanding of science-in-general. But the only philosophers that I'm somewhat familiar with, are Plato & Aristotle --- who basically wrote "the book" on philosophy for the next 2500 years. As some wit observed, about "variations on a theme", it's all "footnotes to Plato".

Anyway, I only dove into philosophy seriously after I retired -- just a few years ago --and began to construct a broad-but-coherent worldview, for my own personal use. The prompt for that on-going project was the conjunction of two paradigm-shifting innovations in 20th century science : Quantum & Information theories. So, I'm trying to weave those disparate scientific concepts into a holistic & consistent philosophical worldview, for my own personal application. Yet, there are plenty of practicing scientists, who are also exploring the philosophical implications of an Information-based universe. And, as you so astutely noted, my personal BothAnd philosophy is merely an update of ancient Golden Mean & Moderation principles for a philosophical life, updated for the current polarized context of adamant Either/Or positions..

Anyway, my general posting policy is to ignore your replies to my posts, because they seldom have anything positive to contribute. They seem to be mostly polarized shout-downs & heckles. However, I must thank you for the links to Dialectic articles. They do seem to be relevant to my thesis, but I assume you were actually trying to pigeonhole me into some easily ridiculed historical positions. Since, as a novice, I'm not well-read in the doctrines you listed above, I have been forced to "reinvent the wheel" to suit a 21st century worldview and context. My "variation" on a long-running philosophical theme was incidental to the thrust of a novel perspective that the venerable philosophers you listed were completely ignorant of. I'm just a layman working alone, while scientific & philosophical pioneers are forging new trails into the unknown territory of information-based Mind & Matter. :cool:

PS__Your dismissal of my references to "Relativity" & "Superposition", indicates that you have no idea what aspects of those concepts I'm talking about. FWIW, I make my case in more detail in the thesis and blog.

Philosophical Attitude :
Karl Jasper submits that “he who believes that he understands everything is no longer engaged in philosophical thought, he who takes scientific insight for knowledge of being itself and as a whole has succumbed to scientific superstition. He who has ceased to be astonished has ceased to question. He who acknowledges no mystery is no longer a seeker, because he humbly acknowledges the limit of possible knowledge. Karl jasper concluded that developing the philosophical attitude opens our mind to the unknowable that is revealed at those limits.”
https://medium.com/@TosinOlufeyimi/why-we-need-to-develop-the-philosophical-attitude-ea06f34bab94

The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/whitehead-plato

A Universe Built of Information :
"In the long journey of the human mind attempting to decode the workings of reality, one trusted companion has to be abandoned: the materialistic and reductionistic scientific worldview."
___ James B. Glattfelder, physicist
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_13

For theists to maintain the Islamic position on God (there's nothing in us or in the world that could be used to get a handle on God hence Islam's hard-line iconoclasm) and also to claim knowledge of God, something quite clever needs to be done, oui? Apophasis (via negativa) + Cataphasis (BothAnd Gnomon) — Agent Smith

For the record, I don't think of the BothAnd Principle as a rhetorical device. Instead, it's a harmonious Holistic worldview. In some aspects, a BothAnd perspective is like the modern scientific concepts of "Relativity" & "Superposition". It allows you to see both sides of coin, or both sides of an argument, in order to reach a better understanding of a complex situation as a whole system of interacting parts. So, it's also the philosophical basis of scientific Systems Theory. :smile:


Cataphasis : noun. Rhetoric. the use of affirmative statements to discuss a subject; affirmation through positive statements.

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.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism.
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference;
* 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.

So, if you think of Matter as a tangible form of incorporeal Spirit, that might work — Gnomon
I think that's a reification. — Wayfarer

Of course. But the suggestion was intended as a change of perspective, in order to adapt to a challenge to someone's religious worldview. From my own science-based philosophical worldview , I have concluded that what the ancients called "Spirit" (invisible agency), is what we now call "Energy" (invisible causation). The difference is that, thanks to Einstein, we can now equate invisible Energy & tangible Matter via the moderation of mathematical Mass. (E=MC^2)

With that in mind, I could re-word my tongue-in-cheek proposal as : "think of Matter as a tangible form of intangible Energy". That's not the fallacy of Reification, but the realization that Energy is a mental model constructed to explain physical changes, that would otherwise seem mysterious. Energy may seem less mysterious (spiritual), if you view it as an active form of Generic Information, which I also call "EnFormAction", to denote its relationship to mundane Energy .


Why are most forms of energy invisible to the naked eyes :
"There is no manifestation of energy that is visible. Even light itself is not visible."
"Mostly because energy is a model we invented to make our physics easier. It doesn't physicially exist, it's just something we created to show how things behave"
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-forms-of-energy-invisible-to-the-naked-eyes-while-we-can-see-heat-as-fire-for-example-What-make-some-forms-seen-and-other-not.
Note -- we see the effects of Energy inputs as the physical changes in Matter


Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog, post 33

EnFormAction :
"En-" within : referring to essential changes of state
"Form-" to mold or give shape to : it's the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.
"Action-" causation : the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.
* So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.*
* Plato’s "Form"s were described, not as physical things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios & relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
BothAnd Blog, post 33

So substance is a form of being, not stuff. Would it be conceivable that matter is ultimately composed of ousia? — Watchmaker

Perhaps. "Ousia" was adopted by Christian theologians as a reference to the spiritual "substance" or "essence" of God. So, if you think of Matter as a tangible form of incorporeal Spirit, that might work. But, for a science-oriented audience, it might be easier to convey the same idea by substituting 21st century "Information" for ancient spooky "Spirit".

From that perspective, God would be the Enformer, who created a world from his own "substance" : in this case, "Information" -- the creative power to enform. That's an update on an old pre-20th century Deistic notion : either God became the physical world, or that God transformed some of his metaphysical Essence into physical matter. Today, pragmatic scientists have learned that knowable Information (meaning) can transform into invisible Energy (potential ; causation), and into mathematical Mass, that we experience as weighty Matter. (E=MC^2)

However, that same "Information" was originally known as the intangible ideas & thoughts in a Mind, in a brain. So, Information is the ultimate shape-shifter. In my thesis though, I also refer to the ultimate source of all things as BEING : the "foundation of all existence". BEING is simply the power to become, to exist. To sum up : everything in this world is a form of Information, or as I prefer, EnFormAction. :nerd:


Metaphysics of God (as One Infinite Eternal Substance) :
Many philosophers and scientists of the past have understood God as One Dynamic Substance that causes and creates the world. This is conducive to the pantheist conception of God as the Universe / Nature / Reality.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-god-substance.htm

Mass, in physics, mathematical measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a ... change of state..

Is Information the Fifth Form of Matter? :
It states that information is the fundamental building block of the universe, and it has mass . . .
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/is-information-the-fifth-form-of-matter

Hmmm. Information is fundamental. But wouldn't there still need to be a mind to to "know" this information, as well as to "know how" to execute it? — Watchmaker

Yes. In my thesis, I call that "Knower" by various names that indicate only its functional role, because I don't know anything for sure about anything that is not within the space-time universe.

Since the "Knower", as a whole, must necessarily be more-than the comprehendable parts, I assume that he/she/it must be external & prior-to the known universe. Also, since some theorists portray the Information-centric universe as a computer program, I use the label "Programmer" to indicate the creative role of the "Enformer". And, for those who are more comfortable with the baggage-laden concept of God, I sometimes refer to the Knower as "G*D". The asterisk is intended to hint that this is not your grandfather's notion of deity. Some traditional philosophical appellations for the executor of the program is "First Cause" or "Prime Mover". Of course, William Paley's, pre-computer, functional description of "Watchmaker" is also historically appropriate.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever the "Knower" is, beyond the conceiver of the world's Information, is of no concern to me. I can make some assumptions & conjectures about Eternity & Infinity, but that's really beyond my scope of knowledge. Apparently, the Knower wants to be known only for He/r knowable Forms. If there is any other revelation, I don't know anything about it. Presumably, you can know the "Artist" by his/her works. :cool:

The Information Philosopher on Panpsychism :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/mind/panpsychism/

Universe information theory :
Digital physics is a speculative idea that the universe can be conceived of as a vast, digital computation device, or as the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

Panpsychism says that consciousness is fundamental. What does that mean exactly, that consciousness is fundamental? That the substance that the universe is composed of is essentially consciousness? — Watchmaker

FWIW, I try to avoid the philosophical problems of Panpsychism, as it is usually formulated. If Consciousness is fundamental, then we could assume that every thing in the universe is conscious to some degree. But the notion of conscious atoms and dust particles has been vociferously debated. As an alternative, I take "Information", in a post-Shannon sense, as the Spinozan single substance of the universe. In order to understand what that means, you'd have to spend some time getting familiar with the scientific postulation that "Information" (essence of both matter & mind) is the fundamental element of Reality. I explore the meaning of that unorthodox concept in my BothAnd Blog. :smile:

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/

Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Goff scoffs at the materialist assumption that mental properties mysterious emerge from complexes of physical properties. "It’s silly to say that atoms are entirely removed from mentality, then wonder where mentality comes from." This discrepancy is why the ancient theory of Panpsychism proposed that even matter is made of Mind (psyche). “Consciousness” is the most common term used to indicate that metaphysical “substance” of reality. But the term is misleading, so I prefer to use the more technical term "Information" in reference to the mind-stuff of which sentience, awareness, feelings and knowledge are made.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

However the knife cuts both ways: Theists can't claim they themselves know anything about God. Could they? How do they avoid the special pleading fallacy? Beats me! — Agent Smith

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??).

Surprisingly, some theists -- including my own religious background -- deny that their Faith is "just a feeling". Yet, in that case, their faith is transferred to objective scriptures, presumably based on eyewitness testimony : the Bible. Ironically, those church-authorized scriptures don't hold-up to dispassionate objective scrutiny. So, what can you do then, if the logical necessity of a First or Final Cause of contingent existence is impervious to empirical or scriptural assaults? For me, that rational conclusion falls into the category of principle-seeking Philosophy, instead of emotional or traditional Religion. Of course, as an abstract philosophical tenet, you lose all the good stuff : worldly blessings & heavenly hereafter. So, it doesn't inspire much in the way of feelings. :halo:

Is Faith Just a Feeling? :
Faith—properly understood—is not a feeling. Rather, faith is active trust based on evidence. Of course, faith can affect how we feel. For example, my trust in my wife may produce feelings of happiness and gratitude, while mistrust can produce feelings of sadness and betrayal.
So faith and feelings are related, but different. Unfortunately, some people base their faith on their feelings. Consequently, the good feelings they get from praying, worshiping, or attending church lead them to conclude their faith is true. In this case, faith is held hostage by feelings.
This is extremely dangerous because feelings are fickle—they can change from day to day.
https://www.str.org/w/is-faith-just-a-feeling-

Neither empiricism nor revelation. What exactly are we talking about here? . . . .
Oh! It's your Both/And Principle. — Agent Smith

You guessed it! :blush:

A Proposed Alternative Theory of Reality :
. . . Both Material and Spiritual
The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated & guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but its positive effects are offset by the, less well known, antithetical force of Disorganization in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of Change in the universe is destructive, as encapsulated in the concept of "Entropy" (negative transformation). Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive "Enformy" (self-organization), evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of "Enformy" has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Note -- The space-time world is inherently dualistic, divided into opposing forces (positive vs negative), and obverse forms (matter & energy), and antagonistic worldviews (Materialism vs Spiritualism). But, there remains a monistic origin for all the dualities of reality : the scientific "Singularity" or the philosophical "First Cause". Moreover, in the space-&-time-bound universe, there remains Substance Monism, as proposed by Spinoza : the "Single Substance" of the natural world, which he called "Nature or God". In my thesis I call it EnFormAction : the creative power to cause change. the term is a portmanteau, combining Energy & Information into a single creative force.

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.
Bothand Blog, glossary

And I think we'll never know, as it's inside the particle. — EugeneW

Yes. Empirical evidence for the inner being of an electron may never be available. That's primarily because electrons are currently assumed to have no internal physical structure for dissecting scientists to analyze. However, that minor obstacle has never stopped theoretical scientists & philosophers from using their X-ray vision (imagination) to speculate on those opaque innards. For example, even a Neutron, with no charge, still contains Energy. So, we could assume that, like Mass, an Electron is made of Energy, which is not a material substance, but merely the potential for change.

Therefore, turning their attention to energy-in-general, some theorists have concluded that "Energy is Information". Moreover since, before Shannon, "information" was the common name for the intangible contents of a Mind (ideas ; thoughts ; memories ; intentions), we can guess that both Energy & Information are somehow related to Conscious Knowing. So, it seems that shape-shifting Energy takes on many different forms, from electron "Charge", to the "Mass" of matter, and even to the "Mind" of a brain. Consequently, some theoretical scientists have deduced that Energy/Information (my term : EnFormAction) is the fundamental substance of the universe. If so, what does that equation of Matter & Mind mean for the "metaphysical theory" of Physicalism? :gasp:


What is an electron made of? :
Electrons are fundamental particles so they cannot be decomposed into constituents. They are therefore not made or composed. An electron acts as a point charge and a point mass.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-electrons-made-up-of-Are-all-electrons-made-of-the-same-material

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
After a brief primer on Shannon’s information, we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

The mental resides in matter. Like charge in an electron. — EugeneW

That is a prescient observation. Both "Consciousness" and "Charge" seem to be intrinsic to matter. But to this day nobody knows what "Charge" is. The etymology literally refers to the "load" that a cart carries. But a wheeled cart could carry a variety of things as its "charge". So, the word is a place-keeper for a more specific definition. Like "Consciousness", empirical science takes its existence -- as an intrinsic property -- for granted -- because of what it does -- but cannot say exactly what it is. My philosophical guess is that Consciousness & Charge & Mass are various forms of Energy : the ability to cause change, to transform. But, what then is Energy or Force made of?

All of these mysterious "properties" are essences, not substances. Which is why empirical Science has to accept them for their functions, even though they can't say what their substance is. As suggested by the "intrinsic property" definition below, what all of these essences have in common is that they are relationships-between-points, not physical objects. The things related can be Physical objects, but the relationships are more like Mathematical ratios (relative values). Hence, a "Charge" can be imagined as the monetary value of a load of potatoes, or sheep, or bread-loaves. But a "monetary value" is simply an idea in a mind. So round & round we go.

Relationships are immaterial links, which can't be seen or touched, so they must be inferred by human "Reason", which "sees" the logical connections between things (see graphic below). And "Logic" is the essence of Semantics : the personal metaphorical or symbolic meanings we attribute to things, as-if their meaning was intrinsic, instead of extrinsic. Likewise, we can say that "Mind" is the function of a brain that sees (imagines) non-physical connections, or relative values, or logical conjunctions between concepts. But what then is "Mind" made of : some abstract ability to bind parts together into whole systems, or to analyze systems into component parts? That mental power itself has no known components -- it just is (Qualia, not Quanta). :cool:

Charge :
Middle English (in the general senses ‘to load’ and ‘a load’), from Old French charger (verb), charge (noun), from late Latin carricare, carcare ‘to load’, from Latin carrus ‘wheeled vehicle’.
___Oxford Dictionary

Intrinsic property :
An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties_(philosophy)

Essence : the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.

Q. What’s the nature of a charge or what gives a particle a negative charge or a positive one?
A. Simple answer is: we don't know.
It is simply an observation of reality that some elementary particles have an intrinsic property that we attribute to a charge. . . . Just as matter particles have an intrinsic mass property, so do charged particles have a charge.
https://www.quora.com/I-m-looking-for-a-philosophical-POV-on-what-exactly-a-charge-as-in-a-charged-particle-e-g-electron-really-means-How-and-what-really-is-a-charge

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives? — Benj96

The ancient polytheistic notion of gods as super-humans, living on clouds or mountains, would certainly be verifiable/falsifiable by modern scientific methods. Ironically, in Daniel 14, the prophet performed a sort of scientific test, to falsify the belief that the idol called "Bel" was actually consuming the food offered to him. But that real-world god-concept long ago succumbed to the ideal-realm god-concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. So no, there is no way to reconcile the religious belief in a holy spiritual God with the scientific belief in a wholly material world.

That's why some philosophers & scientists have attempted to make peace between the Spiritual & Material worldviews, by creating a no-fly-zone between them. Natural Science was presumed to be authoritative about all physical questions, while Supernatural Religion (Theology) ruled over all metaphysical inquiries. But voluntary segregation doesn't work if both sides are motivated to have it all: to have the last word on all questions of Truth.

However, there may be a different way to conciliate the Science vs Religion conflict. That middle way is the purview of secular Philosophy, which has no official creed, and is only interested in plausible Truth, not scientific Facts or religious Faith. Unfortunately, the polarized adversaries both tend to belittle the power of unaided Reason to discover universal truths, without divine Revelation or empirical Verification. However, those of us who are not taking sides in this "holey" war, can create our own personal NOMA, in which to hide from the crossfire.

FWIW, my personal worldview is that "they" are indeed describing the same fundamental principle from different superficial perspectives. Hence, my holistic philosophy is labeled "BothAnd". It's based on merging the 21st century sciences of Information & Quantum, not on ancient beliefs in Materialism or Spiritualism. Instead, the "atom" of reality is mundane Enformation : the power to create novel forms of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Psyche. If that sounds absurd, NOMA also sounded ridiculous to those on opposite poles of the Knowledge continuum. :smile:


Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Holey : full of holes or gaps; not whole or complete

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.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
BothAnd Blog Glossary

The difference/similarity distinction is two heads of the same coin. I start with difference only because Hegel did and that's where my thinking was going.
If you start with the idea of absolute, undifferentiated being, then difference is the key to definition. If you start with the idea of pure indefinite being, a chaotic pleroma of difference, then yes, similarity is the key principal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I haven't read the previous posts in your dialog, but the "similarity vs difference" and "absolute undifferentiated being" rang a bell. In my personal worldview, the pre-BigBang source of our real world was what I call "BEING". I borrowed Plato's notion that real organized Cosmos emerged from ideal disorganized Chaos. But I have to distinguish the ideal concept of monolithic omnipotential Chaos -- no actual things, just potential for all things -- from the modern notion of irrational confusion & disorder. Another term for the unitary fullness of all possible things is a perfect Pleroma. But that has some specific religious references, that are not necessary for philosophical purposes.

In my usage, Chaos is "irrational" only in the sense that it is unitary & atomic, with no separate parts to rationalize or organize, and no pattern to disarray. So, BEING is "absolute & undifferentiated". It's also a Mathematical Singularity, in the sense of having no parts to define it, just pure Potential (creative power) from which all the components of our Reality are derived. Metaphorically, Chaos is like an ovum, which can split into two halves, which continue to divide & differentiate into Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful". However, since the Chaos egg is assumed to be omni-potent, our universe is just a tiny fragment of the infinite possibilities that remain undifferentiated.

Realists & Physicalists typically envision those possible un-known pre-cosmoses as a physical Multiverse, or a real array of Many Worlds. But, I prefer to avoid speculating beyond the only differentiation that we know is necessary for our temporary & contingent home world to exist. Like idealistic Plato, and using Ockham's Razor, I simplify the Beginning of Being (space-time) down to just "pure indefinite BEING" (AKA : Chaos) and alloyed differentiated things (AKA : Cosmos). So, our physical world is characterized by both Difference & Similarity, whereas BEING is Indifferent & Unitary. Hence I must agree that "If you start with the idea of pure indefinite being", then "similarity is the key principal" for defining the multiplicity of created beings & things in our world. :nerd:


BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Mathematical Singularity :
In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)
Note -- the BigBang "Singularity" is a mathematical expression of the Unitary source of our differentiated reality : the ground of our being.

MANY WORLDS OR MULTIVERSE , WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ?

Right. To me that suggests an intrinsic connection between maths and the world. I'm interested in the idea that scientific laws exist where logical necessity meets physical causation. — Wayfarer

That's a new idea to me. But, in view of our discussion of the "logic of reality", I would imagine that Mathematical Logic (bonding relationships ; valence) is the structure of reality, and Mathematical Energy (ratios ; differences) is the cause of structural changes. That concept seems to be compatible with the Enformationism worldview, in which Generic Information (ratios, relationships, connections, differences) is the universal "substance" (per Spinoza) of the world.

Just riffing on a metaphorical theme here : perhaps, the holistic Potential of the pre-BigBang Singularity (egg : zygote), after fertilization (by whom??), contained two Actual aspects : material structure (female ; mother) and dynamic causation (male : sperm). Hence, by analogy with biological development, that initial binary scenario has evolved over the intervening eons into the multiplex world of Matter & Energy we know as Reality. The role of Matter, in this myth, is the stable (Necessity) structure, and Energy is the dynamic (Chance) force of transformation, which explores all options within Possibility Space.

But, who or what defines the limits on possibility? In my myth, the original Egg was programmed by a pre-existing Planner or Lawmaker. However, Materialists might imagine that pre-BB "substance" as a fecund Multiverse (the eternal Mother ; mater). And Spiritualists would picture the dynamic virility as a powerful Elan Vital (eternal Father ; pater). However, my metaphorical myth combines the dual aspects of Reality into a singular Source of Being (cosmic creative principle : Brahman). Of course, anything prior to our local space-time is inherently unknowable. But its causal & substantial (formal) role is still inferrable, by analogy with the substance & laws of the known world. Some might even like to call it the "Great Mathematician". :nerd:


How mathematics reveals the nature of the cosmos :
Mathematics is the language of the universe, and in learning this language, you are opening yourself up the core mechanisms by which the cosmos operates.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-mathematics-reveals-nature-cosmos.html

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog. post 33

Where this started for me was with the realisation of the reality of numbers. . . .
The popular answer is that they exist in the minds of humans only, that they're a mental construction. But the problem with that view is, it doesn't allow for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, nor for the fact that mathematics is governed by rules. So I'm firmly part of the 'mathematics is discovered' camp. — Wayfarer

Yes. I'm not a mathematician, but I think of Math as the Logic of the universe. It's the non-physical "structure" of the physical world. That invisible framework of reality consists of stable consistent patterns of inter-relationships upon which are hung the physical "furniture" of the real world. We can't perceive those intangible links, but we can conceive them via rational inference. So, we "discover" the logical scaffolding of physics, not by empirical probing, but by imaginary conception. We seem to fill-in-the-blanks between things by mentally constructing a pattern of links to fit the pattern of nodes. When a particular pattern is found to be consistent & essential, we call them Rules or Laws that metaphorically "govern" that particular category (set) of nodes.

The stability & necessity of those invisible-but-knowable patterns make them effective for predicting missing nodes or links (components). They serve as a mental map that shows most-but-not-all roads & cities, so we can find our way around the world, even though we are half-blind to that intangible structure. Pardon my woolly description of a topic that is above my pay grade. As an architect, I used to design future concrete physical structures, by first creating an imaginary abstract pattern of relationships between imposed loads (forces) and columns & beams (links). When the math balanced-out, I could be assured that the "logic" of the structure was "sound". Only then, could I be sure that the Potential mental construct would -- when Actualized into material reality -- hold-up under the physical forces of the natural world. That's what I would call "reasonable effectiveness". :nerd:

PS__The mathematical & logical scaffolding of Nature forms the patterns-of-meaning that we call "Information".

Structure :
1. (noun) the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. (verb) construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to

But, Occam concluded that "there was no need for any sort of vague, abstract, entity . . ." — Gnomon
A major digression, but I don't believe the nominalists ever properly understood the idea of the forms. A form is not a 'vague abstract entity' or an entity of any kind, if an entity is considered to be a thing. A form is more like a principle or defining characteristic, intelligible only to the 'eye of reason', and the loss of this understanding represents a watershed in the history of ideas. — Wayfarer

Your comment on "entities" may be a digression only in the sense of supplementary information. As I superficially understand the position of Nominalists, they were opposed to Realists, who didn't believe in anything non-physical anyway. For a non-physical abstract "entity", giving it a name doesn't make it a real thing.

So, their name-vs-entity argument seems to be a "how many angels can dance on a pin" debate. Below is the philosophical definition of "entity" I prefer. From that perspective, an Ideal entity, such as a Platonic Form, exists Abstractly & Potentially until Actualized physically. Of course, how that abstract-to-concrete transformation could occur, probably requires some notion of creation of Something (actual) from Nothing (potential). I suspect that concept of Potential existence does not compute in the worldview of Realists, Materialists, and Physicalists. For them, ideas & ideals, or principles & fundamental truths, are merely religious propaganda.

But, for me, a "Potential Entity" is a legitimate topic of philosophical discussion. If we can't talk about abstract ideas & ideals, what's the point of Philosophy? Unfortunately, we could debate endlessly about how that transformation occurs. But the Enformationism thesis proposes a possible answer : it's all metaphysical Information all the way down, only the material container (outward form) changes due to phase transitions or physical transformations. But, lets not digress on an abstruse mathematical or scientific description of phase states & transitions. Those ghostly apparitions might begin to sound like mathematical magic. Is a "phase state" a real or ideal entity? :cool:

PS__I would ask for more information on the "watershed event" stemming from the "eye of reason" notion. But that might be merely a digression from a digression. :wink:

Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself, as a subject or as an object, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

systems theory phase transition :
A phase space of a dynamical system is the collection of all possible states of the system in question. A phase transition occurs as a result of some external condition, such as temperature, pressure, etc.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~butner/systems/DynamicalSystemsIntro.html
Note -- "possible states" sounds like unactualized Potential Entities.

So, if we flip the direction of entropy, we have a universe tending towards order. Life and other complex self-organizing systems emerge and begin increasing local entropy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. That's exactly what my coinage of Enformy proposes. Without some countervailing "force" to thwart destructive dis-organizing Entropy, randomness & disorder would prevail, and Evolution would become Devolution. Some scientists have made a weak acknowledgment of that downward-directional problem with the awkward term "Negentropy". Calling it negative though, permits them to treat the on-going progression of evolution as a quirky accident. However, giving that organizing principle a positive connotation allows us to interpret the singular direction of Time, and of Evolution, as-if it is working toward some teleological destination.

Not surprisingly, that may be why most scientists are uncomfortable with any hint of plan, purpose or positive direction in the natural world. Yet, if the universe is not, in any sense, directional, how could human intentions, and organized human Culture, emerge from purely random collisions of atoms? My assumption is that there is nothing in the actual Effect (Evolution ; Time) that was not potentially in the Cause (Big Bang). Although, mathematically, time should be reversible, in practice that's never observed in reality.

So, we shouldn't read too much into the news that "Scientists Have Reversed Time in a Quantum Computer". In abstract math, anything is possible. But in concrete reality, change is always uni-directional, toward the "heat death" of the universe. However, what if some future cyborg-culture learns how to permanently reverse Entropy? I'll leave you to work-out that Sci-Fi story. :nerd:


Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

Intention : purpose, aim, plan, design, impulsion, intent, end, motive, ambition, ultimate-aim, obligation and more.

Entropy vs Enformy :
* Entropy is a property of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
* The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That feedback-loop "glitch" is what I call Enformy.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Culture vs Nature :
Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
Note -- Human Culture is anti-entropic in that it opposes the disorganizing effects of natural processes. That's why we have to do regular maintenance on our un-natural technology.

I've never liked that 'Skeptical Enquirer' rag, although I noted with surprise the recent online interview between one of its founders, Michael Shermer, and Bernardo Kastrup, which was surprisingly congenial, I thought, causing me to re-consider a little.) — Wayfarer

Note : Shermer is the founder of Skeptic magazine, not SI. Coincidentally, I just read a Skeptical Inquirer article this morning, that mentioned the Plato & Aristotle concepts of "forms", "universals", and "essence". It's a review of Life is Simple, by geneticist Johnjoe McFadden, about "how Occam's Razor set science free". "William's heresy was to challenge the Church's view that theology was a real science . . ." We now understand that "theology" is philosophy, bound by an official mandate to support an authorized creed.

Referring to radical scholastic theologian, William of Occam, "He attacked the idea proposed by Plato that things we experience in our world are only faint shadows of the real objects that existed . . . somewhere." My own mildly-radical thesis is that our modern notion of "Information" can shed some light into the shadows of that ancient conjecture. The article continues : "Plato termed these 'real' objects Forms, and 'St. Augustine had already imported Plato's Forms into the early medieval Church where they became ideas in the mind of God." Those universal definitions (ideals) of real things were not just vaguely "somewhere", but specifically located in a the "mind" of the creator of the universe. Hence they became universal principles, governing particular things. McFadden goes-on to note that "Later, Aristotle modified the Forms into 'universals', which were thought to be the 'essence' of an object or concept". And that's how I came to connect the philosophical notions of "Forms" & "universals" & "essences" with our scientific concept of Information as abstract knowledge.

But, Occam concluded that "there was no need for any sort of vague, abstract, entity . . ." Ironically, Claude Shannon's definition of "information" sounds very much like a "vague, abstract, entity" symbolized by 1s & 0s. His "information" was quantified in terms of degrees of Entropy, which is itself a reference to the abstract concept of disorganization (the absence of order). But then, McFadden quotes a biologist that, "life is too complex, even irreducibly complex . . . for Occam's Razor to be of any use". However, If we envision "Information" (the creative power to enform) as both universal and essential, all that apparent complexity can be reduced to myriad forms of a single principle, which I call "EnFormAction".

The article even mentions some conjectures of theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, whose mildly-radical ideas I have discussed in the blog. One of those speculations is the notion of "genetic information", which I refer to as "generic information" to indicate that all the manifold things of reality can be traced back to a single simple principle of Essential Form. Anyway, my thesis agrees that "life is simple" when viewed from the perspective of a universal tendency to self-organize into more complex systems with unique properties, such as Life & Mind, from inorganic & mindless matter. The Skeptical Inquirer might not agree with my interpretation of the article, but I appreciate its consideration of creative simplicity, as a natural principle. :nerd:

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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note -- EFA is the simple singular natural principle of organization, that causes the matter of the world to self-organize. It also produces the natural tendency that I call Enformy, which counteracts Entropy & Randomness, to produce complexity & progress.