↪Wayfarer , ↪Gnomon
Ok, so you both will ignore the limits of Aristotelian modal logic becasue understanding the wider formal modal logic would require some effort. — Banno

Yes. For the same reason I ignore 99.99 percent of all technical philosophical papers.

However, if I thought it might shed some light on the OP question --- "what are The Forms?" --- I might expend the effort necessary to dissect abstract Logic and ideal Forms as-if they were physical objects. Your own response*1 to the OP erroneously implies that Plato was talking about Ideal Forms as-if they were real physical objects*2. I never interpreted his theory that way*3.

Instead, he was using as-if philosophical Metaphors*4 to create conventionalized images (names ; labels) of abstractions that non-experts can understand. There is no Ideal realm that we could get to in a space ship. Instead, it's a hypothetical construct that exists only in rational minds as an abstraction from places & domains in sensory reality.

For Plato, names are conceptual labels, referring to meaningful essences*5, not to physical instances of things that you could just point to. For example "dog" refers not to the de-legged Dachshund over there, but to the qualia of "dogginess" everywhere : what all dogs have in common.

I've noticed that philosophical Materialists on this forum tend to interpret Metaphors as-if they refer to Real objective Things, perhaps because they cannot conceive of a dis-embodied (abstracted) Ideal notion. Hence, they misinterpret almost everything that Plato wrote using his hypothetical "rhetorical devices". :smile:



*1. "The theory of forms is an application of a mistaken theory of reference. That theory holds that names refer to things, and that therefore, if there is a name, then there must be a thing to which it refers; So there must be a thing to which universals and such refer - the forms." ___Banno

*2. Thing : In a philosophical sense, "real" and "ideal" represent distinct realms of existence. Real things are those that exist in the physical world, while ideal things are abstract concepts or perfect models, often considered in philosophical contexts like Plato's theory of Forms or in science as ideal gases. The key difference lies in their nature: real things are concrete and subject to change, while ideal things are eternal and unchanging abstractions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22thing%22+real+vs+ideal

*3. "In essence, the critique suggests that Plato's Theory of Forms misinterprets the nature of reference by treating abstract concepts as if they are concrete objects in a separate realm, rather than recognizing them as the abstract principles that give rise to the multiplicity of the physical world."
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=The+theory+of+forms+is+an+application+of+a+mistaken+theory+of+reference.

*4. "Philosophical metaphors are not just a rhetorical device but a crucial tool for understanding and communicating abstract ideas. They serve as simplified representations or "stand-ins" for complex analyses, making them vivid and accessible. In essence, they are a way to think about and express philosophical concepts that might be difficult to grasp otherwise."
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+metaphors

*5. In Plato's "Cratylus", the character Cratylus says that Objects aren't named arbitrarily. Rather Names originate from the nature of Objects, thus they have an intrinsic connection to the essence of Named Objects. This comes in opposition to Hermogenes Conventionalist theory of Naming.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+names+refer+to+things

But Banno's Rule applies: It is always easier to critique something if you begin by not understanding it. Your dismissal of modal metaphysics as “verbal” is a textbook case of strategic misunderstanding. You are trying to cut off a conversation that makes you uncomfortable, that cuts against your own views. — Banno

I apologize for sticking my modular brain into modes that I have little interest in or understanding of : e.g. Modal Metaphysics*1. But this post was inspired by an article in the April/May issue of Philosophy Now magazine. It's a review of a book by Phil. professor James Tartaglia : Inner Space Philosophy. "Inner Space" of course refers to Consciousness, with its metaphysical ideas & subjective abstractions, as contrasted with the Real World out there, and its physical things & material objects. This thread seems to have split along the typical adversarial lines of real Physics (outer) vs ideal Metaphysics (inner), each of which may make some of us "uncomfortable" due to opposing worldviews, or indifferent due to irrelevance.

The reviewer says "the dominant style in philosophy today is one of dry, detailed analysis and argumentation, filled with technical terms that only specialists --- and often very few of them --- can get through". He goes on : "since the beginning of the twentieth century, academic philosophy is meant to be (or has aspirations of being) a science". Then notes : "Many of the philosophical topics that are most important from the perspective of the non-professional . . . . are not considered worthy of discussion within so-called 'scientific' philosophy, because they are ontologically suspect, meaning they require that materialism is false".

Materialism, as a generalization, is a metaphysical concept which cannot be scientifically falsified. So its validity must be established by denigrating that which is immaterial. This is not just a divergence in style or fashion, but in substance. The Forms in this topic are obviously abstract, un-real, immaterial, and in-substantial, hence of little interest to the materialist mind. On the other hand, some attempts to treat such metaphysical topics as-if they can be infinitely dissected into atoms of meaning, may seem adventurous to some, but dry & boring to others. Hence, attempts to "cut off" or redirect a dialog onto more amenable lines. Both sides do it, until the conversation becomes a shouting match, or a mutual retreat.

Personally, I am interested, and have some amateur understanding of both physical Science and metaphysical Philosophy. But when those modes get confused, I either don't understand, or lose interest, or both. For me, the Theory of (infinite possible) Forms*2 is not a scientific hypothesis, and cannot be analyzed by reductive means. So, attempts to do so, may quickly sound boringly verbose*3. Please pardon the lack of understanding, but from my indifferent perspective, MM seems to be searching for an island of certainty within infinite possibility. Is that an impossible dream? :smile:


*1. Modal metaphysics concerns the metaphysical underpinning of our modal statements. These are statements about what is possible or what is necessarily so.
https://iep.utm.edu/mod-meta/
Note --- Medieval Scholasticism was criticized by Protestants for metaphysical over-reaching with absurd hypothetical possibility questions such as "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin".

*2. Platonic forms, in the context of physics, explore the idea that the fundamental nature of reality is not merely physical but also abstract and mathematical, much like Plato's Theory of Forms. This concept suggests that the laws of nature and the structure of the universe are governed by underlying, unchanging, and perfect "forms" or principles, rather than just the observable physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=platonic+forms+in+physics
Note --- Can you dissect a Principle into its parts or modes?

*3. Verbal or Verbose : using or expressed in more words than are needed.
"much academic language is obscure and verbose"
___Oxford Dictionary

PS___ Don't get me wrong, Modal Metaphysics may be a valid & valuable area of research, but it won't prove or disprove the existence or hypothetical utility of Plato's Theory of Universal Forms.

Possible worlds are not so hard to understand. They are just stipulated models of how things might have been. — Banno

The notion of Possible Worlds*1 is way off my radar. But I Googled the term, and Lewis' definition seems to imply that the biblical Heaven is a logically possible, and "real concrete", place in the conceptual cosmos. If so, then Pascal's wager would make practical sense : to bet on heaven, as the payoff for long-suffering Earthly faith & worship. How else could you manage to leave the imperfect phenomenal world behind, and transport to a perfect noumenal world : a stipulated model? Don't bother to correct me, if I misunderstood. I'm content with my so-so Actual World. :joke:

*1. Possible Worlds :
David Lewis, a prominent philosopher, is best known for his modal realism, which posits that all possible worlds are real, concrete entities that exist in the same way as the actual world. He argues that these possible worlds are not mere abstract ideas or thought experiments, but rather they are real, concrete places just like our own.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=david+lewis+possible+worlds

Basically, if you are going to follow only logics from 2000 years ago, you will not be able to engage effectively with more... recent material. — Banno

That's OK by me. I am not a professional philosopher, or an academic logician. So I have no need or desire to engage with "more recent material". On the forum, I am content to let better informed (erudite) posters, such as yourself, dumb it down for me.

Yes, the KISS principle*1 may apply even to logical analysis ; because it allows you to focus on core values, instead of straying into off-shoot dead-ends. Complexity is often used to cover-up non-sense*2. As to which is "correct" --- Aristotle or Kripke --- I suppose it depends on the application. And my amateur use of Logic is pretty basic. :smile:


*1. The "KISS principle," which stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid," is a design principle that emphasizes simplicity in systems and processes. It suggests that most systems function best when they are kept simple, making them easier to understand, maintain, and troubleshoot. This philosophy is widely used in various fields, including software development, engineering, and even business strategies.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=keep+it+simple+philosophy

*2. W.C. Fields — 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.'

In many discussions I hear people always dive into details and see the discussions go south.
How important are details? — Jan

2500 years ago, Plato & Aristotle created the Big Picture of reality that we call Philosophy. It was mostly focused on Universals & Generalizations. But modern science is focused on the itsy-bitsy details. And many TPF posters today seem to have a case of Physics Envy. So, they tend to "dive into the details" to the point that their threads lose track of the original point in question. Hence, we need an Ariadne's red thread to find our way out of the labyrinth.

A.N. Whitehead once commented that modern philosophy has been mostly a "series of footnotes to Plato". I assume he means that the Big Ideas of ancient Greece have been dissected into minuscule bits, to the point that their meaning is nearly indecipherable. Anyway, most of our forum discussions are expressed in terms of Metaphors, not Facts. But some of us get those confused. :smile:

Philosophical Stagnation :
The quote "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is attributed to Alfred North Whitehead. It suggests that Western philosophy has largely built upon or interacted with Plato's ideas. While some interpretations see it as a compliment to Plato's seminal work, others view it as a critique of philosophical stagnation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=footnotes+to+plato+quote

Here is a theory of consciousness that I just published on Akademia: https://www.academia.edu/129143983/Consciousness_as_a_collapse_of_causality — Wolfgang

I haven't read the article, but the abstract*1 seems to make sense, from a peculiar perspective. For example, Nature only knows linear Cause & Effect or Input & Output. Yet the mind of homo sapiens adds an intermediate state of subjective self awareness. I wouldn't call that temporary side-track (recursion) a "collapse" of causation, but merely a way of making use of Energy-as-Information*2*3.

Physically, humans ingest food for their own material metabolism. Likewise, Metaphysically, they absorb patterns of perception (forms, action & behavior) and convert them into Ideas & Concepts to serve their personal mental metabolism : thinking, reasoning. That processing of flow-thru Information is what we call Consciousness. And when the flow is diverted inward (self-directed), it becomes Self-Consciousness. Energy is Causation, but digested*4 energy/information is Conception. :smile:


*1. Why do we feel something? Why is there not only motion, reaction and calculation in a part of the universe, but also experience, qualia, self-awareness? Classical physics knows only cause and effect, computer science only knows input and output. But in consciousness, both seem to blur. This essay is based on the thesis: Consciousness arises where a recursive causal system loses the distinction between cause and effect of its own states.
https://www.academia.edu/129143983/Consciousness_as_a_collapse_of_causality

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is in essence. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Information is Energy :
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*4. To Digest :
to take information into your mind in a way that gives you the ability to use it.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › digest

Whereas ouisia - being - I instead address via the term "essence". — javra
Good choice. I didn't really notice, until composing this post, the interchangeability of 'essence' and 'substance', but I think the former is far less prone to equivocation. We still use 'essence' (as in, 'the essence of the matter') in a way that is more in line with the earlier use. — Wayfarer

proposed that we use Spinoza's definition of Substance*1, which seems to describe God as the ultimate Essence : all possible modes of being. If so, then the modern sense of material Substance applies to only a subset of all possible modes. Logical Essence (attributes & modes) is another category of God Stuff that Descartes labelled res cogitans. :smile:


*1. In Spinoza's philosophy, God is defined as the one and only substance, possessing infinite attributes and modes. This God is not a separate being from the universe but is the universe itself. Everything that exists is a mode of God, meaning it's a way God expresses itself. . . .
God possesses an infinite number of attributes, each expressing a different aspect of God's essence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+god+substance

I do think modern science has come close to functionally defining the essences of material things in the Periodic Table of the Elements. — Gnomon
It is no coincidence that Greek science and philosophy laid the earliest foundations for the 'scientific revolution', so-called. — Wayfarer

Yes. Aristotle may have created the one of first Tables of Elements : Gas, Liquid, Solid, Interactive. Perhaps the 'scientific revolution' has merely added footnotes to Aristotle : Atomic Number. :nerd:


Aristotle's table of elements, or rather his theory of elements, proposed that all matter was composed of four fundamental elements: earth, water, air, and fire. He believed these elements combined in various proportions to form all things in the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+table+of+elements

↪Gnomon
In Kripke - that is, in the standard accepted modern model of modal logic - the essential properties of some thing are those had by it in every possible world. — Banno

Thanks, but I'm not familiar with Kripke, and Modal Logic is over my head. Aristotelian Logic is more like common sense (the actual world) to me. He simply wants to define a Thing in a way that won't be confused with another Thing : its conceptual Essence*1. Physicists & Chemists are content to define a Thing by its unique physical characteristics (periodic table). But shouldn't Philosophers be more concerned with a Thing's abstract conceptual features (Form), and their meaning to a regular person?

Therefore, I would think Aristotle's Essence would be appropriate for a philosophy forum frequented by amateurs. The notion of "qualities that make it what it is"*2 is straightforward enough for even us simple-minded non-professionals*3. So, I'll leave the complexities of all-possible-modes to the pros. :smile:


*1. Aristotle's work doesn't explicitly explore the concept of "all possible worlds" in the way modern modal logic does. . . . .
Aristotle was primarily concerned with understanding the actual world, its structure, and the nature of things within it. He focused on the principles of causation, change, and the inherent potential (entelechy) of things to become what they are meant to be.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+all+possible+worlds

*2. In Aristotelian philosophy, essence (Greek: ousia, meaning "being" or "substance") refers to the fundamental, defining nature of a thing, the qualities that make it what it is. It's the "what it is to be" a particular type of thing, like the essence of a human being is their capacity for rational thought and reason. Aristotle believed that every individual entity, including things and living beings, has an essence that determines its identity and purpose.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+essence

*3. In art and design, "form" can refer to the overall shape, structure, and appearance of an object or composition. When applied to abstract conceptual features, it suggests that the visual form is used to represent or evoke abstract ideas, concepts, or emotions, rather than representing tangible objects.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=form+%3A+abstract+conceptual+features

PS___ I suppose Aristotle's notion of Purpose could refer to a God's intention for creation, or to a human's adaptation of that Functional Design (by Evolution) for his own goals.

...other essentialists... — Apustimelogist
Is that "other" advised? As in, would you consider yourself an 'essentialist'? If so, may I ask what would that involve - that things have a set of characteristics which make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression? Or that essence precedes existence? — Banno

I wouldn't call myself an Essentialist in any formal or doctrinal sense. But I do think modern science has come close to functionally defining the essences of material things in the Periodic Table of the Elements. Each element has properties*1 that are both necessary to the functions (e.g. human uses) of the element, and that are mentally meaningful (as qualia) to the scientists who make practical use of those essential patterns of properties, and their functional relationships to other elements (H + O + O = H2O). Such practical & aesthetic essences describe their role in Physics, Chemistry, and sometimes even in Psychology.

The unique Properties of an element are conceptual characteristics inferred or attributed to a class of material forms by human observers. Some can be quantified, like weight (how Mass is experienced), but others are mental Qualia, like color which exists in the mind not the matter. So, the properties, by which we differentiate material objects, are abstractions in the Mind of the observer, not dissections of the matter. Those mental images are Patterns, Designs, Models, Archetypes, or ding an sich, not actual things. Ironically, the table of elements has empty boxes for functional elements that should exist (ideally), but have not yet been found in nature (e.g. Technetium 43).

Hence, if a physicist (or a god) wanted to create a new material with specific properties, she would begin with an Ideal "set of characteristics" (a formula)*2 to aim at. Plato's "essence precedes existence" may refer to how Nature evolves novel things, such as Life & Mind & diamonds, that presumably did not exist at the Big Bang beginning. Only the Potential*3 for such abstract or concrete things necessarily pre-existed in the form of immaterial statistical Possibilities or Probabilities. :smile:


*1. Property dualism is a philosophical view within the philosophy of mind that asserts the existence of both physical properties and non-physical, mental properties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=property+dualism+philosophy

*2. A formula {essential Form} is a symbolic expression, often in mathematics or chemistry, that represents a relationship, a rule, or a chemical composition. It can also refer to a fixed method, a plan, or a set of instructions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=formula

*3. In philosophical discussions, potentiality refers to the inherent capacity or possibility within something to become or do something else. It's the "what could be" aspect of a thing, contrasted with its current state of being (actuality). This concept is closely linked to Aristotle's philosophy of nature, where things are understood as having potential to develop and fulfill their entelechy (their natural purpose).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+philosophy

Interesting thoughts. I would say that Peirce is a significantly unique thinker, in that he defies a lot of the standard categories. He is certainly a mediator between contemporary philosophy and Aristotelian realism. I also tend to see him as transcending the idealism-materialism dichotomy, although here we run into the difficulty of slippery definitions, particularly with respect to idealism. — Leontiskos

Apparently CSP's philosophy divides the conceptual-symbolic world into three categories instead of the "standard" dualities. I haven't been able to overlay (without overlaps) his triads onto my simpler & more traditional Real vs Ideal classifications. For example : 1) Firstness = Potential, Possible, Ideal? ; Secondness = Causation, Actualization, Realization? ; Thirdness = Mind, Ideas, Concepts, Symbols, Patterns?

More to the point of this thread, where would Plato's ideal Forms fit into CSP's tri-partite categories? How about Aristotle's ten categories? :smile:


Aristotle's Theory of Categories classifies the ways in which we can speak about things into ten fundamental categories : substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and passion. These categories help to understand the different ways things can be predicated of a subject, providing a framework for logical analysis and understanding of the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=categories+aristotle+dualities

I don't know if I would wholeheartedly endorse CSP. He is very concerned to make his thought consistent with science, which is indeed important, but 19th century science tended pretty hard towards reductionism and smallism, and sometimes his moves seem to be in line with this (perhaps because of the quite dominant idea that to be "scientific" is to be reductive. He has a reductive account of essence and substantial form, or of natural kinds, but I don't think one actually needs to be reductive here and loses much if one is. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't know much about CSP, and his abstruse philosophy & vocabulary, but I am generally familiar with his most famous ideas*1. However, I get the impression that his general worldview is similar to my own pragmatic-theoretic BothAnd philosophy*2. It attempts to reconcile reductive realistic Science with holistic idealistic Philosophy, and sensory Materialism with experiential Idealism.

My wishy-washy understanding of Platonic Forms accepts both sensory senses and logical definitions*3. I don't know if there is an objective Ideal realm out-there, but subjective Ideas are certainly in-here. And how sensory Percepts transform into extra-sensory Concepts is a moot question. Also, viewed through my personal Frame of Reference, the world out-there does not measure up to my standard of perfection.

Hence, the abstract notion of a human-mind-independent-perfect-world is a useful aspiration that humans have taken for granted over millennia. For example, the Aboriginal DreamTime has provided a sacred context for imperfect reality over 50,000 years of cultural evolution. :smile:


*1. C.S. Peirce's philosophy involves both realistic and idealistic elements, particularly his concept of objective idealism. He believed in a real, mind-independent world, while also arguing that the ultimate nature of reality is experiential and mind-like. This view distinguishes him from both naive realism and panpsychism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=c.s.+pierce+realism+idealism

*2. 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. . . . .
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; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Timeless metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

↪Gnomon
Well, philosophy tries to get at the underpinnings of empirical thoughts and thoughts in general. That makes it different to the empirical sciences, and also considerably more difficult. Unlike scientists, philosophers don't have the benefit of being able to look around to see if they are right. — Banno

Yes. Even the scientific "underpinnings" for some counterintuitive conclusions remain debatable, long after they are accepted as doctrine. For example, some of Einstein's worldview shattering "facts", although supported by mathematical & physical evidence, still must be somewhat taken on Faith, because for Reason it doesn't add-up. We may not understand how invisible intangible insubstantial causal Energy can transform, like alchemical magic, into passive massive Matter. But much of modern science is grounded in that equation. For doers, it works. But for thinkers, it's still only a theory. :wink:


While Einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation E=mc² is widely recognized and used in physics, its derivation and interpretation have been subject to ongoing debate and criticism. Some critics argue that Einstein's original 1905 paper contained logical flaws, such as circular reasoning, and that alternative derivations based on momentum conservation are more accurate. Additionally, some argue that Einstein's "proofs" were limited to low-speed approximations and didn't adequately address general cases. Despite these criticisms, the equation itself remains a cornerstone of modern physics and is supported by extensive experimental evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+mass+energy+equation+controversial

That mention in passing of the distinction between reality and existence is one which I will guarantee you, nobody (or almost nobody) on this forum will recognise. (And I know this from long experience.) — Wayfarer

Nobody here. I feel you. My worldview evolved from tepid Spiritualism as a child, to agnostic Materialism as a young adult, to a variety of -isms as a mature philosophical seeker. Since my knowledge & understanding of the worldwide variety-of-views is minimal, I cannot be dogmatic about any of them.

Although I can't accept hard-line Materialistic beliefs about the physical substance of my concepts, I also can't imagine that Plato's Ideal realm is an actual place. Instead, it's an as-if metaphor (a name), not to be taken literally. So, earlier in this thread, I admitted to being a Nominalist regarding the reality of your experiences & concepts. My directly experienced shadow ideas are not out-there in the real world, where you can find them, but in-here where I can express them in metaphorical labels & common names, as short-cuts to help you re-experience my feeling.

My personal worldview is BothAnd. It accepts imaginary mental representations of external reality as categorically different in essence from material things out there. But both inside and outside are real to me. The supposed "distinction" is necessary only for Metaphysical Ontology, not for practical Science. :smile:

This might be the key here. Those who "feel an need for Universal Concepts" will make an unjustified jump to them. It'll be a transcendental argument: things are thus-and-so; the only way they can be thus-and-so is if this Universal Concept is in play; therefore... — Banno

That sounds like a negative assessment of theoretical Philosophy compared to empirical Science. Scientists "justify" their work by getting observable physical results. But Philosophers by giving intellectual logical reasons. For example, Descartes' Mind/Body dualism, and cogito ergo sum have no material evidence, and ultimately only a transcendental argument : God. Yet, if the philosopher gives valid reasons for his postulated Universal Concept (e.g. God ; Forms), then he feels justified for his if-then conclusion. Ooops, there's that non-factual "F" word again*1.

Einstein used logical mathematical arguments to deduce that gravity could bend the path of massless photons*2. And his seemingly illogical conclusion was later justified by astronomical evidence. Unfortunately, Philosophers have no recourse to such evidence. So their justification is in accepted beliefs. For example, Plato & Aristotle were successful in the sense that their Universal Concepts (e.g. four Causes) were accepted as logically useful notions for millennia after their publication.

Yet, Aristotle tried to have it both ways, by asserting that Transcendent universal properties were also Immanent, as instances in material Things : Immanent Realism. The latter can be "justified" scientifically, but the former (the Forms) can only be supported by their acceptance in the minds of other philosophers. Therefore, he implicitly accepted the Mind/Matter relationship that we still argue over 2500 years later. Today, some philosophers feel justified in using Universal arguments, but some don't. To each his own. :smile:

*1. To Feel vs to Know : both are mental impressions, but feeling is General while knowing is Particular.

*2. Einstein sometimes used the transcendental term "aether" within his general relativity theory, but he was referring to the mentally-inferred properties (qualia) of spacetime, not to the measurable stuff of a material medium.

The admonition is that in order to understand meaning, look to use. In order to understand what folk think, look to what they do. And here, include what they say as a part of what they do. — Banno

That's an objective practical (scientific ; material) way to look at it. But a subjective theoretical (philosophical ; mental) perspective might include personal experiences that are meaningful, even if not practical . So, the physical Utility of a thing is a different conceptual category from the Meaning of the thing, relative to the observer. Hence, we are back to the old Mind/Body duality. :wink:


PS___ The fact that Philosophy is based more on Feelings & Beliefs is why ancient Greeks developed the Skeptical method of judging proposed ideas about the Nature of Reality and of Knowledge. The average person in those days made no distinction between physical Science and metaphysical Religion. But our modern separation of empirical Science and theoretical Philosophy has drawn a hard line between the Material world of tangible stuff and the Mental world of intangible ideas. All too often, the successes of Doing have allowed haughty Cynicism to supplant modest Skepticism.

Skepticism involves questioning or doubting claims, especially without sufficient evidence, but it's open to being persuaded with evidence. Cynicism, on the other hand, is a pervasive distrust of others and their motives, often expecting the worst and viewing them as selfish or malicious, and it doesn't rely on evidence or rationality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=origin+of+skepticism

PPS___ I'm currently reading Thomas Mann's WWI philosophical novel The Magic Mountain. No magic in the story except one late scene involves a seance, where most of the attendees seem gullible, but the ignorant & modest young protagonist remains somewhat skeptical of the manifestations of a ghost. Modern skeptical magician Randi, would have exposed the medium's sleight-of-hand tricks, in part by noting not what she said, but what she did.
Note --- Gnomon may come across as a gullible believer in unreal ideality to you, but he has subscribed to SKEPTIC magazine and Skeptical Inquirer for over 5 decades.

↪Gnomon
If you are saying that meaning is seen in what we do, then we agree. There's no need to invoke forms to explain what we do. We can just act. — Banno

Since I have no formal training in philosophy, many of its technical terms*1 are fuzzy for me. I'm pursuing this Idealistic angle on Forms*2 for my own benefit, not to convince you. Hence, my impractical question, inspired by your pragmatic/analytic*3 approach : why do some of us feel a need for Universal Concepts, when others find Particular Percepts sufficient for survival? What we sense is what is real, what we imagine is fictional. Why then, are some people motivated to seek-out feckless Fiction, when placid animals seem to be content with pragmatic Facts? In other words, Why do Philosophy?

The concept of ideal Forms is not necessary or useful for Scientific purposes (doing ; acting on the world). But Philosophy (thinking ; understanding the world) goes beyond what is apparent & obvious, to discover the broader (general ; universal) meaning underlying the specific Things we see around us. For those of us who want to take meaning & significance to the limit, we quickly run into the physical restrictions of the Real world. In order to get around those barriers to liberal wisdom, we rational animals can imagine a meta-physical realm of Ideal entities, such as Gods & Forms & Mathematical Types {image below}, that are not bound by natural laws; only by abstract Logic. Such notions may have no practical applications in the Material world, but they do have profound effects in the shared Mental world of cultural concepts & beliefs, such as religions & philosophy & scientific theories.

Both Religion and Philosophy have been developed to enhance our ability to cope with the perplexities of human culture, and the complexities of the social milieu. The primary difference seems to be that Religion advises us to put our faith in the wisdom of others : Priests & Gods, while Philosophy is more of a self-help guide to personal wisdom : Stoicism & Buddhism. And Wisdom is more than a collection of Facts, it's the ability to see invisible inter-relationships, from which to create a mental map --- from a bird's perspective --- to help us navigate that labyrinthine terrain. If you can get around without a map, then you don't need that unreal imaginary fictional stuff.

For me, Meaning is not what we do (act on things), but what we think (manipulate imaginary notions). :smile:


*1A. Nominalism :Forms are not Real, in that they have no objective existence, apart from their utility for describing the objects & actions we experience. Yet we use names to efficiently communicate meanings.
B. Epiphenomenalism : Mental states are not real, but merely byproducts of brain processes.But in order to communicate those states, the physical patterns must be translated into abstract Ideal information : concepts, words, names.
C. In the context of philosophy, an epiphenomenon is a phenomenon that is caused by a primary phenomenon but does not itself cause anything. In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental states are epiphenomena, meaning they are caused by physical states in the brain but don't cause any physical events themselves.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+eiphenomenon
D. Realism and nominalism are philosophical stances that differ in their view of abstract concepts or universals. Realists believe that universals, like "redness" or "humanity," have an objective, independent existence. Nominalists, on the other hand, assert that universals are merely names or concepts created by humans, and they don't represent an external reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=realism+vs+nominalism
Note --- Human History is a record of Ideas that cause change in the world. Communication of information is a causal force, not in Nature, but in human Culture. Apparently, I am a nominalist : "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name" ___Confucius

*2. Platonic Forms, in essence, serve as a foundation for understanding and accessing true knowledge and moral ideals. They provide a framework for identifying what is truly real and valuable in a world of constantly changing appearances. Forms, according to Plato, are not merely mental concepts, but have a real existence in a separate, more real world, and they are the ultimate objects of knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+do+we+need+platonic+forms
Parmenides, a Pre-Socratic philosopher, argued that reality is a unified, eternal, and unchanging whole, while the perception of change and multiplicity is an illusion of the senses. He proposed that "Being" is the ultimate reality, and that "non-being" is either unknowable or non-existent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=parmenides+philosophy
Note --- Apparently for Plato, True Knowledge is universal, eternal, unchanging & rational as opposed to the local, imperfect, evolving & neurological knowledge of the physical senses. I don't know if he actually believed in a perfect Parmenidean realm, but he probably thought there ought to be something better than our directly-experienced Reality, that leaves much to be desired. Human cultural progress is based on the belief that we can make it better. Is that an impossible dream, or an inspiring aspiration?

*3. Analytic and Continental philosophy represent two distinct approaches to philosophy, primarily differentiated by their methods and areas of focus. Analytic philosophy emphasizes clarity, precision, and logic, often focusing on language, logic, and the analysis of concepts. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, is more concerned with the broad history of philosophy, human experience, and the interconnectedness of ideas.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=continental+vs+analytic+philosophy
Note --- My upbringing in the US was in the pragmatic & protestant heritage instead of the continental/catholic tradition. But in my later years, I am trying to learn about other worldviews, including the ancient Greek foundations of philosophy. In another post, I may attempt to make sense of 50,000 year old Aboriginal philosophy, with its otherworldly Dreamtime.


IDEAL FORMS ARE IMAGINARY & MATHEMATICAL, NOT ACTUAL & MATERIAL
The postulated elements are symbolic not physical

Why should there be a thing that is common to all our uses of a word? — Banno

As pointed out, there is no universal or general or essential THING to which our words point. What is "common" to words is meaning, not matter. And meaning is mental, not physical ; it's abstract, not concrete. So your "why?"question only makes sense from a materialist perspective, in which ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc are made of material atoms, similar to those that compose physical objects. Please pardon the "Materialism label", you may have a somewhat different meaning in mind for your "Thing".

Universal refers to a whole integrated system, not its parts. Generalization is a mental act that goes beyond empirical evidence to imagine all Things that have some common essence. The Essence of a Thing is not another thing, but the defining Quality of the thing. The atom of Qualia is a subjective, experiential, conceptual relationship between things & observers, and their meaning in a broad context. The "problem of Universals" is that they are not real things*1.

Empirical Science does not evaluate Qualia (meanings ; forms) , it counts Quanta (things). It's the job of Philosophy to seek-out the Forms that are common to all uses of our words, and then to describe the specific Meaning that applies to the topic under discussion. The philosophical quest is not for the particular Thing, but for the essential ding an sich.

But, you probably know all of this, and just need to be reminded, that this is a philosophy forum, where we do not dissect Things, but Ideas. Why should such non-specific Universals exist? Because we humans aspire to a god-like top-down view of the world. And we have the mental power to imagine*2 things that do not exist in the physical world, but subsist in the metaphysical ream of ideas & qualia. :smile:


*1. Universal Concepts :
In philosophy, universals are abstract qualities or characteristics that are shared by multiple objects or things, existing independently of specific instances. They are often seen as the fundamental building blocks of knowledge, explaining why things are similar and allowing us to categorize them. The "problem of universals" delves into the nature and existence of these shared characteristics, asking whether they are real entities, mind-dependent concepts, or simply names for similar things.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+universals

*2. It wasn't Elon Musk who imagined an American-made electric car for ordinary people, but a couple of visionary entrepreneurs. They eventually realized an ideal concept.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=origin+of+tesla+electric+car

In your own view, what are The Forms, which Plato alluded to?
As I see it, the only way to perceive The Forms, is through mathematics. Thus, if one were to try and describe in mathematics, what Plato alluded to The Forms, then, would it be tantamount to the very mathematical identities which one encounters in the study of mathematics? — Shawn

I agree. Some on this forum are uncomfortable with the concept of Ideal Forms, because it's a non-empirical metaphysical notion. But then Mathematics is also abstract and intangible. For example, there are no numbers in the real world, only multiple things that can be counted by a rational Mind. And logical relationships are mental, not physical phenomena. Besides, the Greek word Mathema simply refers to knowledge in a mind, not to physical things in the world. Moreover, the Greek word Thema means the Idea of something, not the actual thing itself.

And yet, physical science has found metaphysical Mathematics to be useful, perhaps indispensable, for learning how the world works. And modern Math includes the concept of Zero --- symbolic of Nothingness or Absence --- which the ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, considered to be impractical, and even dangerously metaphysical --- in the sense of spookily unreal. Even so, we can see, with the mind's eye, a resemblance between real physical beauty and ideal metaphysical perfection, to which we may attach a number for relative perfection. {image below}

Moreover, the modern philosophical resistance to the very notion of Metaphysical Forms may stem from their implication of supernatural objects that can only be known subjectively via imagination. In fact, a common explanation for the theory of Forms is that they are Ideas, Concepts or Designs in the Mind of God. And that notion is, for some, unacceptably transcendent of material reality.

Yet, where in the material world can we find instances of Numbers & Mathematical Principles, except in a human mind? Likewise, abstract, in-corporeal, non-empirical Forms can only exist in an imaginative mind of some kind. And the God-Mind, or Form-Realm, could be viewed as simply a hypothetical locus of Forms such as Beauty, Perfection, Infinity, Zero, Unity & Multiplicity, that we can access only via rational inference, or idealization from empirical evidence, not by means of physical senses. :smile:


Plato's Theory of Forms, which posits a separate realm of perfect, eternal ideas or Forms, faces several criticisms. Some philosophers argue that it is too abstract, lacks empirical evidence, and raises logical problems in explaining the relationship between Forms and the imperfect world of appearances. Additionally, questions arise about the nature of Forms, their accessibility, and the implications for ethics and knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+problem+with+platos%27s+forms

IS IT REAL, OR IS IT A.I., OR IS IT IDEAL?

cosmological evidence that our space-time universe had a beginning in philosophical time — Gnomon
I can't make sense of the idea that the Universe had a beginning in time, and certainly not "philosophical time" (whatever that is meant to be). The beginning of the Universe was the beginning of time according to my understanding of the current theory. — Janus

That's why I specified that the Cosmic Birth Event was in "philosophical time" not clock time. Can you make sense of Einstein's notion of "Block Time"? It's a metaphorical concept, not to be taken literally*1.

You may need to imagine that our subjective experience of Sequential/Cyclic Time is an exception to the timeless state we call Eternity --- or Frozen Time, or Block Time. Then, imagine yourself as a god-like observer of the Big Bang, like the Trinity Atomic Bomb test. From your philosophical perspective, the Bang would be Now, and the Past would be Potential-not-yet-Actualized. Metaphorically, our little bubble of space-time is passing through non-dimensional changeless latent Possibility. :smile:


*1. Einstein's theory of relativity, specifically the idea of a "block universe," doesn't mean time doesn't exist or is an illusion. Instead, it suggests that space and time are interwoven and that all moments in time, past, present, and future, exist simultaneously. This challenges our subjective experience of time passing, but it doesn't negate time's objective reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Einstein+block+time+not+literal

ETERNITY IMAGINED AS A BLOCK OF ICE


PS___ Maybe you could imagine yourself as the "Hotel Manager" at the grand opening of the Hotel Cosmos.

Count T and I, in contrast, want to use "metaphysics" more broadly, to mean any framework that results in a philosophical position about "the world as we find it." On this usage, it looks impossible to do without metaphysics, since philosophy presupposes it.
— J
I agree. — Gnomon
Sure, it's perfectly good way to use the word, and my own preference. — J

I too expected that using the ancient concept of "metaphysics" to distinguish theoretical Philosophy from empirical Science would be non-controversial. But on this forum it is still associated --- primarily by Atheists & Materialists --- with Religion instead of Philosophy. So, I'm forced to spend a lot of time explaining why I like the functional distinction that Aristotle made, without naming it*1.

Aristotle's encyclopedic Physics (Nature) began with empirical observations, but in a separate chapter --- later labeled The Metaphysics --- discussed theoretical philosophical Ideas about Nature-in-general. Book 5 is sometimes described as a compendium of then-current theories about the Natural world, including conceptual abstractions (Justice & Ethics) and its immaterial functions, such as Life & Mind*2. Admittedly, "Metaphysics" viewed narrowly is a Theological term. But considered "more broadly" it's a categorical label that distinguishes conceptual Philosophy from materialistic Science. :smile:


*1. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. In the famous chapter on the meanings of the term “nature” (phusis), contained in Book V of the Metaphysics, which is considered Aristotle's dictionary of philosophical terms, he distinguishes among the various meanings of this term, present in common parlance or in the theories of the philosophers preceding him: “
https://www.pas.va/en/publications/acta/acta23pas/berti.html

Count T and I, in contrast, want to use "metaphysics" more broadly, to mean any framework that results in a philosophical position about "the world as we find it." On this usage, it looks impossible to do without metaphysics, since philosophy presupposes it. — J

I agree. To make a simplistic black vs white distinction : Empirical Physics is based on sensory observations, including those amplified by technology, of the "world as we find it". But Theoretical Philosophy, including Einstein's relativity theories, adds human reasoning in order to know what can't be sensed directly (e.g. what it would be like to ride on a light beam).

Non-human animals are empirical scientists, in that they come to understand the world via their innate senses. But, as far as we know, animals don't theorize about things unseen. Yet, they cope with the "world as they sense it" well enough to survive and evolve.

Since Philosophy is almost entirely theoretical & speculative, instead of observational & practical, I tend to equate Philosophy with Metaphysics, in the sense that its theories go beyond (meta) what we sense, to rationally infer (extrasensory) universal & general principles, including Holistic concepts vs Particular observations.

Ironically, those with Materialist worldviews tend to denigrate metaphysical (theoretical) Philosophy in favor of physical (evidential) Science. But the presumption that our universe consists entirely of material substances, as opposed to intangible, incorporeal, or ethereal forms, is itself a metaphysical conjecture*1.

The Materialist conjecture makes sense to most humans, perhaps because it is necessary for survival in the natural world ("red in tooth & claw)". By contrast, Philosophical speculations have little to do with living in the Natural world, but are necessary for coping with the Cultural world of human societies. All social animals must be able to "read" the minds of their fellows to some extent.

But for humans, in world-spanning societies (red in bullet & bomb), it is imperative to theorize what-it's-like for our social associates. Hence, we must metaphysically go beyond what's obvious (the crocodile smile) to speculate on the intention for future action. Metaphysics measures the world as we infer it. :smile:


*1. The word materialism has been used in modern times to refer to a family of metaphysical theories (i.e., theories of the nature of reality) that can best be defined by saying that a theory tends to be called materialist if it is felt sufficiently to resemble a paradigmatic theory that will here be called mechanical materialism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note --- Modern Quantum Physics*2 has been forced to deal with aspects of the real world, that are not objectively Material, nor classically Mechanical. It's mainly Mathematical & Logical, focusing on "things" unseen, and things that are not yet things (indeterminacy). Hence Meta-Physical.

*2. Quantum indeterminacy, in a philosophical sense, refers to the inherent uncertainty and lack of definiteness in the physical world at the quantum level, as described by quantum mechanics. It's not just a limitation of our knowledge or measurement techniques, but a fundamental feature of reality. This indeterminacy has sparked philosophical debate about the nature of reality, determinism, and free will.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+indeterminacy+philosophy

Sure, it's a speculative possibility, and is not inconsistent with a creator God that is either not all-knowing and/ or not all-good, and/ or not all-powerful. Whitehead's God was understood to be evolving along with its creation. I never quite got the need for, or understood the place of, God in Whitehead's system, though. — Janus

Whitehead's God was not defined in those "omni" terms, but described in functional roles*1. But then, his Process Philosophy was written prior to the cosmological evidence that our space-time universe had a beginning in philosophical time*2. And that apparent Creation Event would place his Immanent God into a new context : how to explain the "birth" of God/Nature. All answers to the pre-space-time questions are speculative & theoretical, not empirical & scientific. Which includes Multiverse notions. And they are only religious if they become dogmatic.

In my own "speculative" thesis, I would describe Whitehead's (and Spinoza's) creative force, and Plato's Demiurge (world builder) in terms of Energy (causation) and Law (regulation). But the question remains : how & why & whence did those practical Forces suddenly appear in a "cosmic explosion" birth-event of the world we now inhabit? Again, all postulated answers to such questions are philosophical, not scientific.

Of course, I have no revelation from the Great Beyond. But as an amateur philosopher, I feel free to extend knowledge of the extant world, into the realm of logical possibilities. So, I have created my own conjectural thesis, based primarily on what we know of non-classical Quantum Theory, and post-Shannon Information Theory*3. I also go back to the origins of Rational Philosophy in Plato & Aristotle for the logical necessity of a First Cause or Prime Mover*4, which Whitehead assumed was "uncaused" in the physical sense*5.

The "need" for such an eternal Principle was probably based on Whitehead's pre-bang intuition, that all known space-time processes --- including biological evolution --- eventually come to an end (what we now know as Entropy), and must have an injection of Energy to begin. In effect, his Causal Principle is equivalent to the axiomatic (taken for granted, not proven) eternal Energy & Law inputs that sparked & regulated the primordial explosion of an infinite mathematical Singularity into an evolving & progressing Evolutionary Process of emergent Space & Time, and Life & Mind.

The pertinent question for this thread is : would you hold such a Nature God responsible for the evils of this world, or view H/er as a fellow sufferer : "a participant in the process of change"? :smile:


*1. In Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, God is not a supernatural being, but rather the persuasive ground of novelty and freedom, necessary for his metaphysical system. Whitehead saw God as an indispensable part of his system, as the force that provides order, novelty, and an aim for all entities. This God is not eternal, but rather a participant in the process of change, and his power is one of persuasion, not coercion.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+whitehead+god
Note --- Scientists refer to that "force" as Energy, but usually ignore the "order, novelty & aim" implications. His God is both an eternal Principle, and an immanent agent of change.

*2. Philosophical Time : The philosophical study of time explores the nature of time, its relation to space, and the implications of its passage. Key questions include whether time is a fundamental dimension of reality, or merely a human construct, and whether the past, present, and future exist as real entities or just as perceptions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+time

*3. Information theory is the mathematical study of the quantification, storage, and communication of information. The field was established and formalized by Claude Shannon in the 1940s,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Note --- "Claude Shannon is often described as "the father of information theory" although he described his work as "communication theory."
Subsequent developments have expanded the theory into Physics applications, in which Information functions as a form of Energy.

*4. Gnomon : I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Intention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- Whitehead referred to the causation & intention as "persuasion" & "concretion", but also as the"principle of limitation" (natural law) and the "organ of novelty" (creative causation).

*5. In Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, "first cause" is understood as the fundamental, uncaused source of all reality, a principle of creativity that underpins the universe and its ongoing process of becoming. Whitehead's concept differs from traditional notions of a "first cause" that is separate from and external to the world. Instead, he views God as both the primordial "how" and the consequent "why". God, as the primordial cause, initiates the creative process, and as the consequent cause, enjoys the beauty and goodness that result from the universe's ongoing development.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+first+cause
Note --- The notion of a God who creates, then inhabits, a physical world is usually labeled Pandeism. But I prefer PanEnDeism. The Creative Principle transforms into a Physical Process. Some imagine that humans are God's sensing & thinking organs.
"Whitehead's process theology proposes a dynamic and interactive God who is both immanent and transcendent" https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+pandeism

Either God would have liked to create a perfect world free of suffering but was unable to do so, or didn't realize what he had done in creating the world, or else such a god simply does not exist in which case there is no "problem of Suffering". — Janus

That two option analysis seems to be a slam-dunk for critics of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. But, since our world is pretty good --- stop and smell the roses --- but not yet perfect, and it does include suffering of sentient beings, I have considered a third option. What if this world was not created as an instant Paradise, but as an experiment in Cosmic Creation*1, similar to Whitehead's evolutionary Process*2?

Plato knew nothing of Big Bang theory, but his Chaos to Cosmos theory could be adapted to suit modern cosmology. In this case, I would recast the Demiurge (creative worker) in the role of Causal Energy (ergos = work). His Chaos would be an infinite Pool of Potential, again unrestricted Energy (power to cause change). Although, in the real world Potential Energy is relative to position, in pre-bang infinity it would be absolute.

The Chaos to Cosmos program would not be "modeled on a perfect form", but a learning process of trial & error, similar to our modern methods of Evolutionary Programming*3. The evolution of our universe seems slow & wasteful because it began from scratch and works toward a near infinite universe. But computer programming can begin with the output of previous operations, and is given a narrow definition of success.

I won't go into more detail here, but I'll note that your Either/Or statement does not, in the real world, eliminate the "problem of suffering". It only makes the Genesis account of creation seem implausible. And it leaves us sufferers with no one to blame for our misery*4. Yet, in the Cosmic Creation experiment, sentient intelligence is not the only goal, but also moral & ethical behavior will be selected for. Perhaps working toward an immanent God, or gods, who have experienced suffering and can empathize with it. :smile:


*1. Plato's view of the cosmos is presented in his dialogue Timaeus. In this work, Plato describes a universe created by a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who fashions the cosmos from pre-existing chaos and eternal Forms. The cosmos is a living, spherical being with a soul, modeled on the perfect Form of a living being. It is not eternal but is a moving image of eternity, reflecting the eternal Forms. The Demiurge creates time along with the cosmos.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+cosmos

*2. Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy provides a framework for understanding evolution as a dynamic, relational process of becoming, rather than a static or predetermined outcome. He emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things and the role of eternal objects and actual occasions in shaping the evolutionary journey.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+evolution

*3. Evolutionary programming is an evolutionary algorithm, where a share of new population is created by mutation of previous population without crossover. . . .
It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

*4. Philosophy Now magazine, article on GUILT :
The following sums up the consequences of dealing with guilt in an unhealthy manner : "they refuse any responsibilities for their deficiencies, refuse to go out in any positive way to others, and blatantly blame everything on a wicked God, a God who is totally guilty".

So, the Bang must have had the potential for purpose. — Gnomon
That would only seem to hold if you take the so-called laws of nature to be fixed and immutable from the beginning. Peirce didn't think that, and as far as I remember from studying Whitehead quite long ago, nor did he. — Janus

The link below says that Whitehead viewed natural laws as "emergent patterns"*1. And they are indeed emergent in the sense of our understanding of them. For example, Newton's view of Gravity has been significantly modified by Einstein. But the cosmic Law of Attraction didn't change, only our scientific & mathematical models.

Aside from those philosophers, most scientists today assume that Natural Laws are "empirical regularities"*2 upon which we may depend for developing our knowledge and technologies. Either way, the burst of Causal Energy & Regulating Law that we metaphorically imagine as a Big Explosion (voila!), necessarily included the Potential (latent capacity) for all subsequent forms.

For my philosophical worldview, I assume that the various Laws of Nature in effect today, were inherent in the mathematical Singularity that went Bang, but only as generic Potential, not actual or specific. If so, then the possibility of emergent Intelligence & Purpose must have been "programmed" into the metaphorical Singularity. That "point of infinite density & curvature" --- no space, no time --- could not contain anything that we now know as physical or Actual, so the myriads of Real things today, may have originated as what Whitehead enigmatically called "Actual Occasions" : fundamental, irreducible units of reality.

In computer programming, we understand that the Output (result) of the computation process began as a Goal or Purpose in the mind of the Programmer. And that's how I imagine the otherwise mysterious something-from-nothing Big Bang input, followed by the creative computations of evolution. Some imagine that the BB was just a blip in an eternal process of universe production, with no beginning or end. Maybe, but I find that notion difficult to reconcile with the contingent & entropic Reality we experience today. :nerd:


*1. In his philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead argued that natural laws are not fixed, pre-existing rules, but rather emergent patterns arising from the relationships between "actual occasions" (events) and "eternal objects" (concepts). He emphasized that these laws are not separate from reality but are part of the ongoing process of becoming
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+natural+law

*2. Most scientists take it for granted that the laws of nature were fixed at the moment of the Big Bang,
https://opensciences.org/open-questions/are-the-laws-of-nature-fixed

The three-in-one Christian god-head is still popular among the masses, but waning with the intelligentsia, — Gnomon
I may have the wrong end of the stick, but I have the impression that the difference between the God of the masses and the the God of the philosophers goes all the way back to Xenophanes in the earliest years of philosophy in Ancient Greece. — Ludwig V

Yes, rational philosophers have always felt less need for the personal touch of anthro-morphic gods. But analytical mathematician/statistician & probability theorist Blaise Pascal, argued that, although we can't be sure the God of theologians even exists, we would be wise to bet on the "house" to win.

He also decried the feckless God of philosopher Spinoza, who can do no more than what happens mechanistically in Nature. And the majority of humanity seems to agree with him. Strangely, some of Pascal's fellow Catholics, believed so sincerely in the infinite reward-pot after death that they were willing to cut short their mortal coil, and go all-in. How can austere reason compete with such popular passion, and long-term thinking? :smile:

PS___ Ironically, Pascal might be surprised to learn that modern science views Nature as statistical instead of mechanical. Does that mean that we are all playing the odds. Does that imply a gambling god? One who does not predetermine the path of nature?

The statement "nature is statistical not mechanical" is a philosophical perspective often debated in physics, suggesting that the universe operates on a probabilistic, rather than deterministic, basis. This perspective is often tied to the idea of quantum mechanics, where measurements are probabilistic rather than having a predetermined outcome.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=nature+is+statistical+not+mechanical

Sure but Spinoza, probably out of not wishing to offend the religious authorities even further than he already had and out of his belief that the masses need a personal conception of God anyway, spoke in terms of "Deus sive Natura", where he could have simply spoken of natura. An impersonal God offers no comfort, and Spinoza did not believe in any afterlife. — Janus

Yes. I think the world was "created" in some sense : Big Bang. But the creation could only be considered intentional in the sense that purposeful, intentional creatures have emerged from the progressive evolutionary process. So, the Bang must have had the potential for purpose. Hence, the Cosmos can be viewed as personal & purposeful in that self-aware & motivated beings inhabit the Earth, and soon learn to take care of themselves.

Yet, when humans are born, they are weak, ignorant, and needy. So, they cling to mother for sustenance and comfort. Consequently, even as adults we often feel the need for soothing solace from another similar being. Unfortunately, other mature --- but sometimes cranky --- humans, with problems of their own, may be less inclined to mother weepy grown-up strangers. Therefore, the wishful notion of a supernatural parent capable of unconditional love, and power to fix broken things, is understandable.

That's why I don't discuss emotion-suppressing and myth-busting rational philosophy with members of my own family, who still feel the need for a more personal & caring I-Thou relationship than Spinoza's natura can offer. :smile:

PERSONAL COMFORT & CONSOLATION

With whatever conception of God there is that fits the all-good-powerful-knowing God of the argument, I am asking why is it we can’t account for all the pain and suffering if there is such a God, but we can account for it without God? Why is it we are fine adjudging “An all-good God would not want there to be any suffering let alone all of the gratuitous suffering, but nature needs there to be all of this suffering in order for it to function at all.’ ?? — Fire Ologist

Strangely, most people in the world do believe in some kind of god-concept, as an explanation for basic existence. Yet, they strive to appease the mythical mercurial ruler of the world, because they know that as bad as things are, it could get worse. For Christians, that "worse" is The Worst : eternal suffering in Hell. So despite the routine woes of life in God's creation, the long-suffering victims sing the praises of their redeemer, who will reward them with The Best : eternal bliss in Heaven. This reminds me of the old saying "justice delayed is justice denied".

As you said, Nature seems to inherently "need" (require) both positive & negative variables. This dichotomy goes back to the nature of Energy (causation) : it "works" by alternating between Hot & Cold, More & Less, Pain & Pleasure, Life & Death. These up & down variations are inherent in the cycles of Space-Time. So, we tend to view impersonal Nature non-judgmentally as "it is what it is", but we judge a personal God, capable of Love & Hate, in terms of Good vs Evil. Making God vs Devil a necessary adjustment to the monotheistic ideal.

That's why Spinoza's God/Nature was described as impersonal : it omits the Good/Evil judgements, and stoically accepts the Pain/Pleasure dimension as simply Natural. It's the same Paradise-failed reality, viewed from different perspectives, and with different expectations : differing accounting methods. :smile:

When you {plural} use the word "God" are you referring to A) the triune God of Christianity, one aspect of whom is a person capable of empathizing with human suffering? Which may be an attempt to reconcile the "notion of justice" with an omniscient abstract God, incapable of suffering . Or B) to the omnipotent (necessary & sufficient) God of Spinoza, which is the non-personal force of Nature, that is no respecter of persons, hence dispenser of impartial natural justice (it is what it is)? — Gnomon

I was referring to the three omnis: omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The Chrisitan conception of God is of a loving personal God, one who cares for all his creatures. The nature of His creation (assuming just for the sake of argument that there were such a creator God) belies the conception that God could be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. It a pretty easy to understand inconsistency which keeps getting glossed over by believers.

Spinoza's critique of that conception of God can be found in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and a trenchant critique it is. His own conception of God grew out of that critique. Needless to say, Spinoza's God has no concern for humanity or anything else. — Janus

That third "omni" is the problem. As the Jews learned over centuries of divine tough love, Omniscience & Omnipotence are not compatible with Empathy & Sympathy. Omni love would be more like Artificial Intelligence*1. Modern humans can "fall in love" with computers, and the computers are programmed by humans to express their "care & concern" for the person with benevolent words*2. But computers & Gods, lacking biological bodies & motivating hormones, are presumably incapable of feeling love, in the human sense.

So, that's why I think the Christian triune God-concept had an emotional advantage over the abstract unitary deity of the Torah. It reintroduced a physical concrete element that the prophets of Yahweh had attempted to banish for generations. A heroic, half-human, half-god messiah was more like the pagan demi-gods, Aeneas, Bacchus, & Hercules : More inspiring & sympathetic characters, for people to admire and aspire to. The addition of an immanent Holy Spirit added an element of practical magic to the mix. So, Christianity hit all the right notes at a time when both Roman and Jewish gods were fading in popularity.

The three-in-one Christian god-head is still popular among the masses, but waning with the intelligentsia, who are more impressed by rational evidence than by emotional myths. That's why I think A.N. Whitehead's update of Spinoza's nature-god is more appropriate for the 21st century. Spinoza referred to his Ultimate Substance as "God", and Whitehead used the same term for his Ultimate Principle of Progressive "Concretion" (evolution).

For my own philosophical purposes, I tried to find a different label for the creative Process that evolved a world of Life & Mind from an initial burst of Cosmic Energy. But that only led to mis-understandings. So, like them, I sometimes use the G-word, because it is the best known term for the Ultimate Cause that is creating a meaningful world from scratch. Yet, I see no reason to complain to omnipotent Nature for succor, to relieve the sufferings caused by both Nature and Culture. :smile:


*1. A Psychologist Explains Why It’s Possible To Fall In Love With AI
https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2024/03/24/a-psychologist-explains-why-its-possible-to-fall-in-love-with-ai/

*2. Humans sometime express benevolent feeling in "little loving lies" : Fleetwood-Mac

So why must we apply the notion of justice to suffering with the presence of of God? There is no other way? — Fire Ologist

replied "No, the reality of a suffering world is incompatible with the usual conception of a tri-omni God."

When you {plural} use the word "God" are you referring to A) the triune God of Christianity, one aspect of whom is a person capable of empathizing with human suffering? Which may be an attempt to reconcile the "notion of justice" with an omniscient abstract God, incapable of suffering . Or B) to the omnipotent (necessary & sufficient) God of Spinoza, which is the non-personal force of Nature, that is no respecter of persons, hence dispenser of impartial natural justice (it is what it is)?

In case A) Justice is whatever God says it is. Or whatever God's interpreters say it is. {natural law or religious law}. In practice, God's law & justice are always filtered through human opinions.

For case B) what happens is often deemed unfair (contrary to my best interest) by sufferers of natural disasters. But we have no recourse to a sympathetic higher authority. So, we can't legitimately complain about injustice.

Yet there is another way : mundane Human systems of Law & Justice.

Aside from ecclesiastical courts, most appeals to Justice are directed to fallible human judgement, despite its spotty record of fair & balanced & accurate dispensation. Ironically, even most secular courts of Justice aspire to divine recompense for suffering (hand on the bible). But, in practice, it seems that most human & animal suffering leaves us with only two options : take opioids to dull the pain, or "suck it up!"

Even so, wronged humans typically look for someone to blame for the Evil stuff, and to praise for the Good stuff. Hence, the notion of divine Justice as an Ideal for comparison with what's Real. Yet, agnostic pragmatic Aristotle placed the blame for suffering on human ignorance & lack of virtue (bad people)*1. So, we're back to reliance on mundane Justice. :smile:


*1. Aristotle viewed good and evil as being about actions and choices, not as inherent qualities. He believed that knowledge and virtue are the hallmarks of good, while ignorance and vice are the causes of evil. Essentially, Aristotle didn't see a separate source of evil in the universe, but rather evil as the result of a lack of knowledge and virtue.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+good+vs+evil

we philosophize — Gnomon
My new books in Lounge: — PoeticUniverse

I looked at the Rubaiyat Weave webpage. Is the artwork yours? Fantastic!
What is your connection to the The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam?*1

I noticed the Sean Carroll quote : "there is no life after death". And I must agree, except that my Enformationism thesis concludes, as an aside comment, that causal Enformation {power to give form to the formless} --- besides being a vectored process*2 --- is a pattern of interrelationships (information ; meaning). So, a particular form-pattern could in principle be reconstituted, just as computers can copy & paste data. I wouldn't organize my life around the expectation of a better life in the hereafter (bird in hand . . .). But it's a possibility that philosophers could argue endlessly about. :wink:


Life Is the Flame of a Candle :
So I decided on a cheerful topic: Death and Physics. I talked about modern science gives us very good reasons to believe (not a proof, never a proof) that there is no such thing as an afterlife. Life is a process, not a substance, and it's a process that begins, proceeds along for a while, and comes to an end.
___ Sean Carroll
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/01/03/life-is-the-flame-of-a-candle/comment-page-2/


*1. "Sadegh Hedayat commented that "if a man had lived for a hundred years and had changed his religion, philosophy, and beliefs twice a day, he could scarcely have given expression to such a range of ideas". . . .
FitzGerald . . . . describes Omar's philosophy as Epicurean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam
Note --- "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die." ___ Epicurus ; Ecclesiastes???

*2. The cosmic process of Enformation (EnFormAction ; Evolution) appears linear to us limited-life beings. But on an eternal-infinite scale, the process could be cyclic, as some scientists speculate.

PS___ I'll append my *thanks* to the Transcendental Troll for his unrequested political opinions in the post below. :joke:

So dance upon these threads while still you may,
For though they quiver, still they hold their sway,
And in their intricate connecting lines
Lies meaning for our brief cosmic stay. — PoeticUniverse

Humans did not compose the rhythms of reality, but we are motivated by necessity to dance to the music of Evolution. For some, the dancing may look like quivering spasms, to others like sexy swaying, but the dancers create their own meaning to explain why they do what comes naturally.

In another god-related thread*1, I said :
"That's why I prefer A.N. Whitehead's notion of God (Nature) as the inexorable Process of Evolution. The Darwinian Procedure works like a program*1, via And/Or/Not (selection & combination & elimination), to improve the current stock for the next generation. Like Spinoza, Whitehead uses the term "god" in a technical, not religious, sense to designate the implicit Programmer of this ongoing process of cosmic Creation. So, God is still in "the mix", not as the intervening manager, but as the program and/or programmer of the creative system we call "Evolution" or "Nature". The manager is not at the front desk, but at the cosmic computer console."

I also opined about those "intricate connecting lines" :
"Obviously, the goal of evolution is not you or me. So we are merely means to some other end. Meanwhile, we philosophize." To what end are you doing the wishful waltz? :joke:


*1. The 'Hotel Manager' Indictment (anti-theodicy)
But this framing of the problem reflects a profound misunderstanding of its nature. It assumes a particular conception of God — one that is, in effect, a kind of cosmic hotel manager. The world is imagined as a well-appointed establishment where the guests expect, indeed are entitled to, a decent standard of accommodation.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/984441

She just creates an ongoing Process of Emergence — Gnomon

The video begins with a wardrobe malfunction, and concludes with a philosophical malfunction. If you ignore the progression of the Evolutionary Process, and assume it is totally random, then the Pale Blue Dot in the cosmic blackboard "should not exist". We're not playing darts here, but from the perspective of the only sentient beings we know, that "dot" is in the center of the target. How did we get here from the propulsive Singularity? :joke:

ONE SMALL PLANET DEFIES THE ODDS


PS___ I'm skeptical of some of the interpretations of "coincidences" in the video. But I can agree that Evolution has hit a lot of coincidences on the nose.

But if we take God out of the mix, we still have nature; what does that make of the use of death and pain as the engine of survival in nature (the physics of it)? The world is still as it is, with it's pain and death. — Fire Ologist

Exactly! Arguing about the goodness or badness of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God does not solve the humanistic problem of Evil & Suffering. It merely assigns blame to the mythical Manager, who is ironically assumed to be absent from his post. A more philosophical position would be to recognize that the world (i.e. Nature) "uses" pain & death (sentience & senescence) as integral components in the constructive process of Evolution, from a mathematical quantum-scale Singularity to a near-infinite & ever-expanding Cosmos of Consciousness. On one Pale Blue Dot, we humans somehow became sentient, and invented the categories of Good & Evil, so we'll have something to philosophize about.

Non-theistic pre-Christian philosophies --- Brahmanism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Stoicism, Epicureanism --- accepted the world "as it is", and charged humans with the responsibility for adapting to that reality. The various gods of Theism serve mainly as someone to complain to (e.g. the management). But secular history records no instances of divine interventions into the course of Nature, on behalf of whining humans. Yet, we have myths saying that the gods fixed the problem by evicting the troublesome tenants with floods & massacres. Obviously, the goal of evolution is not you or me. So we are merely means to some other end. Meanwhile, we philosophize.

That's why I prefer A.N. Whitehead's notion of God (Nature) as the inexorable Process of Evolution. The Darwinian Procedure works like a program*1, via And/Or/Not (selection & combination & elimination), to improve the current stock for the next generation. Like Spinoza, Whitehead uses the term "god" in a technical, not religious, sense to designate the implicit Programmer of this ongoing process of cosmic Creation. So, God is still in "the mix", not as the intervening manager, but as the program and/or programmer of the creative system we call "Evolution" or "Nature". The manager is not at the front desk, but at the cosmic computer console. :smile:


*1. Evolutionary programming (EP) is an approach to simulated evolution that iteratively generates increasingly appropriate solutions in the light of a stationary or nonstationary environment and desired fitness function.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-540-92910-9_23

One of the most frequently raised objections to religious belief in the modern world is the Problem of Evil. The argument is simple and emotionally powerful: if God is all-powerful and all-good, then why does He allow terrible suffering? — Wayfarer

This definition of deity may be peculiar to the Catholic rendition of Judaism. The God of the Hebrews was indeed all-powerful, by contrast to pagan idols, but his goodness was conditional : if you don't Love & Fear & Obey God, you will suffer. The Creation was described as Good, but its imperfections were blamed on the species of sentient-yet-gullible creatures that were supposed to “manage” the Garden. Ironically, the Hebrews, as the Chosen People, accepted that blame, on behalf of all humanity, as inscrutable divine Justice.

Catholics inherited the Good God as a given, then spawned a corps of Scholars charged with finding reasons to reconcile Omnibenevolence with both natural and cultural Evil. As usual, the blame is placed on the creatures, not the creator. Except that the machinations of a subordinate Evil God were postulated as a way to test human faithfulness & love for the Good God, which presumably makes up for their innate credulity. Yet, if God is indeed Omnipotent, then the "buck" of suffering stops at the top. Not the desk clerk, but the CEO. :smile:

The moment there is matter, there is entropy. — Wayfarer

Contrary to Catholicism, my philosophical god-concept is closer to that of Spinoza and Whitehead*1. Whitehead defined his God, not as an ideal of perfection, but as the potential for creation and change. Specifically, his god functions as a “principle of concrescence” : the act or process of coming or growing together; coalescence . And that is one way of describing Natural Evolution : incremental & progressive occasions of form change.

The Big Bang was a cosmic explosion of Energy, followed by ongoing expansion & Entropy. If that was all there was, then eventual Heat Death would result in the snuffing-out of the Cosmic flame. But mutual gravity causes concretion, as Energy becomes Mass, and Mass becomes stars & planets. Evolution is an elaboration and extension of the process of coalescence. And, historically, it has a direction : from the simplicity of a Singularity, to Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"*2.

Philosophically, we can think of Energy as positive, and Entropy as negative. Then, in terms of human emotions, Positive change is Good, while Negative change is Evil. For sentient creatures, Evil results in suffering. But, as far as we know, natural Energy has no agenda for the survival or thrival of humans. Yet, if Evolution --- as exemplified on Earth --- is indeed moving inexorably toward complexity, then the human brain may be the current apex of material concrescence.

The physical brain's non-physical (immaterial) function, Consciousness, may also be the emergence of a novel form of causal Energy. The homo sapiens brain produces something undreamed of 14B years ago : knowledge and self-awareness. So, Whitehead's impersonal Principle seems to have set our universe on a course that we humans are unable to predict. But some of us may look upon the process of Evolution, and say that it is both Good and Bad, depending on your viewpoint. One way to look at it is to admit that the Cosmos is improving*2 but not yet perfect. :wink:


*1. PROCESS COSMOLOGY --- a worldview for our time
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15833/process-cosmology-a-worldview-for-our-time/p1

*2. Misconceptions about evolution :
Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu › teach-evolution › misco...
Note --- Adaptation means improve or die

The hidden hand that writes creation's tale
Leaves traces of intent we might unveil,
If only we could read between the lines
Of DNA and stars that never fail. — PoeticUniverse

Excerpt from post above :
" Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently. — Gnomon
Except that your interpretations consist in appeals to ignorance fallacies, as quite a few members have exhaustively pointed out over the years, and my interpretations do not."

As usual, 180 alcohol content responds to my philosophical arguments --- in favor of a Cosmic Cause (hidden hand) for the contingent universe we living & thinking beings inhabit --- with ad hominem political attacks : e.g. liberal (logical) inference bad vs conservative (physical) evidence good. I assume he is appalled at the worldwide popularity of the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, who frequently punished his chosen people with mass death and deportation. 180 may also have had a bad experience with pedophile priests or knuckle-rapping nuns.

What he calls an “argument from ignorance”*1 is actually a logical inference from circumstantial evidence to a general conclusion, not the ridiculous claim that “absence of evidence is evidence of presence”. Even scientist & skeptic Carl Sagan*2 used the reverse argument to indicate that we should keep an open mind about hypotheses that lack conclusive, “I rest my case”, evidence.

However, this thread is about the “God” of A.N. Whitehead*3, which is essentially what Blaise Pascal called the “God of the philosophers”*4 --- referring to Spinoza. The Philosopher's God doesn't reward or punish anybody; She just creates an ongoing Process of Emergence which inspires philosophers to ask “Why” questions. Spinoza inferred from the evidence of Nature that there must be some universal & eternal substance or essence with infinite attributes, which he, like Whitehead, reasoned to be a “necessary assumption”*3 for understanding the world.

I suspect that Spinoza might agree with Whitehead's god of organism, if he had lived in the 20th century. Both inferred from circumstantial evidence that a universal Substance/Essence was logically necessary to explain the existence, persistence, and consistence of the world we questioning beings inhabit. :nerd:



*1. An appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when someone claims something is true or false simply because there's no evidence for or against it. It's essentially arguing "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" or "absence of evidence is evidence of presence", which is a flawed logical leap.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=argument+from+ignorance+fallacy+examples
Note --- 180 demands physical (material) evidence of a god immanent in the space-time world. But Gnomon presents metaphysical (logical) evidence of the necessity for a transcendent (pre-bang) Cause of the innate Process we know as Evolution.

*2. The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" means that the lack of proof for something doesn't necessarily mean that the thing doesn't exist. It's often attributed to Carl Sagan, who famously stated that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This means that the absence of evidence for a hypothesis doesn't automatically prove that the hypothesis is false.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=absence+of+evidence+is+evidence+of+presence

*3. Whitehead's conception of God, articulated in his philosophy of process and organism, is not presented as a proof of God's existence in the traditional sense, but rather as a necessary assumption for understanding the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+evidence+for+god

*4. The phrase "not the God of the philosophers" often refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as distinguished from the God of philosophical inquiry. Blaise Pascal famously used this distinction, highlighting a personal, relational God rather than a purely abstract or logical one. Some interpret this as a contrast between a God who is part of religious belief systems and a God who is understood through reason and logic, often portrayed as more impersonal.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=not+the+god+of+the+philosophers

*5. Evidence for universal Substance : Spinoza has not proved but assumed that God is an - or rather the - existing substance.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51293/spinozas-proof-of-god
Note --- Ironically, 180proof's favorite philosopher didn't present physical evidence for his universal Substance. Instead, the natural world was taken for granted as beyond argument, and the God Substance was assumed as a logically necessary Axiom.

creative process — Gnomon
The answer to your quest! — PoeticUniverse

Yes, others have joined in the quest to understand the "creative process" of our evolving universe. Some even liken that Process to a line-by-line computer program, as-if designed by a creative mind. For example, Charles Seife makes use of the computer analogy in his 2007 book Decoding The Universe. But, since he is not a philosopher, he does not attempt to define the logically necessary Programmer, other than a vague reference to Infinity*1. Also, Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe, presents the evidence of coded information in Nature, but leaves the inference of a cosmic coder to the reader's reason. Unlike free-thinking philosophers, professional scientists are limited by their empirical method to physical evidence.

As usual, demands immanent physical "evidence"*2 of the programmer, but all we have access to is the lines of code known as Natural Laws : the syntax of cosmic creation. So, we can follow the trail of evidence back to the scene of the "crime" (Big Bang), and use our detective skills to pin the crime of creation on the transcendent perpetrator. Yet, if the programmer is infinite & indefinite, what kind of evidence would you expect to find : footprints in the mud, or fingerprints on the DNA? For philosophers, logical & rational evidence, interpreted from the physical evidence, should suffice, to prove within reason that the programmer got away with, not murder, but creation of Life from scratch*3. :smile:


*1. “This is the definition of the infinite : it is something that can stay the same size even when you subtract from it.” — Charles Seife
Note --- Since our space-time universe is always increasing in size, his "infinity" must be referring to the concept of an entity Greater Than the physical world. His Cosmic Coder could be described as PanEnDeism : physical universe within meta-physical Mind. Hence, the only physical evidence is the creation itself.

*2. Btw, I recommend Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd (2006); also Stephen Wolfram's work on complexity / computation, David Deutsch's work on MWI quantum computing and Carlo Rovelli's work on RQM. ___excerpt from 's post above
Note --- We read the same science books, but interpret their philosophical implications differently.

*3. "Deus absconditus," a Latin term meaning "hidden God," refers to the Christian theological concept that God's essence is fundamentally unknowable and that God is often perceived as absent or hidden, even when actively present. This idea contrasts with the concept of "Deus revelatus," or the revealed God, as seen in Christ.
Note --- My philosophical thesis is amenable to the hidden god concept, but not the revealed god of Theology

Life's a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows,
Stretched as time between eternal boughs.
Gossamer threads bear the beads that glisten,
Each moment a sequence of instant nows. — PoeticUniverse

I'm currently reading a science book for the general public : The Science of Why We Exist, A history of the universe from the Big Bang to Consciousness. Understandably, the author presents his story in a linear cause & effect fashion --- like a computer program --- instead of a non-linear web of Fate. Ironically, given the title, the book is about the Hows, not the Whys*1.

In his chapter on Beginnings, he says : "Physics is the science that explains why the universe behaves like it does". Yet again, the explanation is a list of mechanical sequential causes (Hows) instead of a single synopsis of an intentional Why. Nevertheless, I found one expression to be suggestive of a Why motive for beginning the evolutionary sequence of our Cosmos. He said : "If physics is the universe's way of turning energy into atoms, then chemistry is the cosmos's way of transforming elements into life". Hence : A Physics = Energy ➜➜➜ Atoms (matter), and B Chemistry = Elements ➜➜➜ Life (animated matter). The arrows indicate the steps & direction of transformation. So the general direction of Evolution is from simple to complex, and from Matter to Mind. But what step came before Physics?

In a marginal note, I extended that programming logic to say : Biology is the cosmos's way of transforming Energy into purposeful behavior : *C* Biology ➜➜➜ Purpose (intentional action). Then, Psychology is the cosmos's way of transforming Energy into Thought : *D* Psychology = Energy ➜➜➜ Mind (intellectual function). This step by step story of evolution begins with an undifferentiated burst of cosmic scale energy (the input), which gradually, over billions of solar cycles, transforms from A generic causation, to B the diversity of things, to *Ω* meaningful ideas (the output??) via the process of differentiation*4. This notion of omni-causal power is amenable to my own theory of EnFormAction : the generic power to transform. Of course all those logical stages along the way are also inter-related by our minds into a cosmic web of whos, whats, wheres & whys. You could say that Evolution is the Cosmos's way of weaving a world of intellectual interest to its questioning elements. :smile:


Note --- Since I lack your talent for rhyme & reason, I thought you might be able to turn the linear logical path of causation into a poem of creative computation. Although, 180proof may cringe at the pre-causal (First Cause) implication, here's my crude attempt :

THE WHYS OF EVOLUTION
The universe behaves as it does,
Not randomly, but because. . . .
It was designed to evolve via telesis*2
'to a world of life, mind and poiesis*3.

It was programmed to transform
Potential into material forms.
By means of Logic, not Accident,
Yet who knows what it meant.

It possessed both Power and Purpose
To evolve a world that slowly goes
From Bang to Thing to Think,
In the space of a god's eye blink.

Yet the motive behind the act
Is concealed in the syntax
Of a world creating algorithm
And an Easter Egg*5 with'em.


*1. "Why" questions seek to understand the reason or cause behind an action or event, while "how" questions focus on the process or method of achieving something. "Why" delves into the purpose and motivation, whereas "how" examines the mechanics or steps involved.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+vs+how

*2. "Telesis" refers to progress that is intentionally planned and directed towards a specific end, often through the application of human intelligence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=telesis

*3. Poiesis : (poetry)In philosophy and literary theory, poiesis refers to the act or process of creation, or the making of something that didn't previously exist.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=poiesis

*4. Differentiation : The act or process of differentiating. 2. Development from the one to the many, the simple to the complex, or the homogeneous to the heterogeneous.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/differentiation

*5. Easter Egg : Computer easter eggs are hidden, undocumented features, messages, or jokes embedded within software or hardware. These "secrets" are often discovered by users who find a way to activate them through specific keystrokes, commands, or actions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=computer+easter+eggs

creative process — Gnomon
The answer to your quest! — PoeticUniverse

As a conceptual model, to imagine the physical universe as-if it is a computer simulation*1, is compatible with my Enformationism thesis. But the philosophical question remains : who or what was the Putative Programmer, the Cosmic Coder, the Quantum Quester? In the 21st century, several physicists and mathematicians have written books on related topics*2. I suspect that even 180proof could accept that as a plausible concept, except for the logical necessity for a transcendent Programmer to setup the evolutionary system to compute a cosmos from scratch.

Personally, I find the notion of a spontaneous self-creating self-programming computer cosmos to be implausible. So, I still see a logical need for Whitehead's God ; and even Spinoza's deus sive natura, as long as both conjectures are updated to take account of 21st century cosmology*3. Since classical physics, and Einstein's Relativity, do not compute at Singularity scales, we still need to face the enigma of provenance for Causal Energy & Limiting Laws & queer Quantum Math.

Presumptive Multiverse & Brane hypotheses merely kick the can of genesis down the road. Leaving us with an originless & endless (hence irrational) infinite-regress Tower of Turtles paradox. Therefore, for my philosophical purposes, I simply call that logical paradox : G*D or Programmer or Logos. But I refuse to bow before a Magician who hides behind a curtain of quantum complexity. Instead of blind faith, I say "show me". Hence my ongoing quest for a credible Ontology. :nerd:



*1. Computer Universe :
The idea that the universe could be a vast computer simulation, or a type of digital computation, is a concept explored in the field of digital physics and by some physicists. This perspective suggests that the universe's fundamental structure and evolution might be viewed as a complex computation rather than a purely physical process. . . . .
The simulation hypothesis also raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality and our perception of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+as+computer

*2. Programming the Universe : A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos
Seth Lloyd "Particles not only collide, they compute."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe

*3. Quantum cosmology is the field that attempts to apply quantum mechanical principles to the entire universe, particularly focusing on the quantum nature of the universe's early stages and the Big Bang. It seeks to address questions about the universe's origins and early evolution, where classical general relativity breaks down.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+cosmology

TOWER OF TURTLES with no foundation


Postscript : says there's no physical evidence of a Cosmic Programmer of physics. Would you expect to find DNA of a computer programmer in the code? Experts in coding may claim to see the metaphysical "fingerprints"*4 of a well-known coder in peculiarities of the instruction set : an "explanatory function".

Philosophy is not an empirical science. So it only requires logical plausibility, not physical evidence. Apparently an Immanentist prefers to leave ultimate origins unanswered. That "free lunch" attitude is OK for a Chemist or a Physicist, but not for a Cosmologist or Philosopher. :wink:

*4. Fingerprints of God --- https://youtu.be/DB_APoFu2BA?si=PB3IUOPM27a_j0zi

You and I have discussed this numerous times and each time This is pretty close to my understanding of metaphysics except in most cases people who take a particular metaphysical position are not aware that they are. Metaphysics is generally the unconscious, unexpressed, unintentional foundation of what we believe and how we act. — T Clark

I explain how I understand metaphysics. After all this time we have no excuse. Either I explain badly or you are not listening carefully. Either way, we never seem able have a fruitful discussion. — T Clark

Voltaire : “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms”. I agree that we need to make sure we are talking about the same topic.

How did you arrive at that unconventional definition of "Metaphysics" as subconscious Faith?*1 Is it a common Catholic usage? My Protestant background did not introduce me to that notion ; so I missed it the first time around. It might make for an interesting conversation on a different thread. But it's not anywhere near my own usage. I have explained repeatedly that I use the term literally, to refer to the topics that philosophers are concerned with. And which are beyond or outside (meta) the purview of scientists. Why do you equate Poetry (poiesis = creativity) with Faith?*2

What alternative label would you use to include all of the following topics of philosophical interest*3 : First Principles ; Substance ; Causation ; Form & Matter ; Potentiality. In this and other threads I have referred to meta-physics simply as "Philosophy". But some mis-read it as a reference to Religious philosophy. However, I explicitly exclude the Catholic Theology that centuries later came to be identified by the "meta-" term. If these traditional metaphysical (non-physical) topics are of interest to you --- now that I know Metaphysics means something bad to you --- I will try to avoid that trigger word in the future. For the record, I'm not a fan of blind Faith. :smile:


*1. Metaphysics, while not inherently synonymous with faith, can be understood as a study that often overlaps with religious beliefs and practices. Metaphysics, broadly defined, is the branch of philosophy that explores the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and the world beyond what can be observed through empirical science. Faith, on the other hand, is a belief that is not based on proof, but rather on trust or conviction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysics+defined+as+faith*2.

*2. While the connection between poetry and metaphysics is not a strict equivalence, there's a significant overlap and influence between the two. Metaphysics, the study of reality beyond the physical world, often finds expression and exploration through poetic language and themes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=poetry+is+metaphysics
Note --- Poetry : literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; poems collectively or as a genre of literature.
From Gnomon post above : "However, I understand the OP as saying that Metaphysics is an imaginative way to describe the world, and not to be taken literally. That's not exactly how I use the term, but I can live with that."

*3.Aristotle's metaphysics explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the principles underlying all things. Key topics include substance, causation, form and matter, and the nature of being. He also investigates the existence of mathematical objects, the cosmos, and the relationship between the physical and supra-physical realms.
Here's a more detailed look at some key topics:
Substance :
Aristotle distinguishes between primary and secondary substances. Primary substances are individual beings, while secondary substances are the categories or classes to which they belong.
Causation :
Aristotle identifies four types of causes: material (what something is made of), formal (the structure or form), efficient (the agent that brings about change), and final (the purpose or end).
Form and Matter :
Aristotle's metaphysics is deeply influenced by the concept of hylomorphism, which holds that all things are composed of both form (the essence or defining characteristic) and matter (the material substance).
The Nature of Being :
Aristotle investigates the different ways in which the word "be" is used, exploring the nature of being qua being (being as such) and the different types of being.
The Unmoved Mover :
Aristotle posits a first cause, the Unmoved Mover, a divine entity that is the ultimate source of motion and change in the universe.
Potentiality and Actuality :
Aristotle explores the concepts of potentiality (the capacity to become something) and actuality (the state of being), arguing that all things are in a constant state of becoming and changing.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+metaphysics+topics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/

metaphysical concepts are products of the imagination, knowingly fictional, and designed to be useful for thinking rather than corrresponding to "how things really are". — Jamal
This is how I see it, although watching people here on the forum scratch and struggle to defend their metaphysical positions as universal truth, I don't think it is correct to say knowingly fictional. — T Clark

The Big Bang Theory was a product of scientific observation and mathematical extrapolation. But many scientists & philosophers have not been satisfied with the typical interpretation of the Singularity-that-went-Bang myth as a creation or birth event. So, they have gone beyond the evidence, using logic and imagination to explore the Great Beyond.

A few of those "products of imagination" are Inflation, String Theory, Multiverse, & Many Worlds. My own contribution is Enformationism, which assumes that causal Energy necessarily existed prior to the Bang. That's because the BB theory has no empirical answer to where the power-to-go-bang and the laws-of-evolution came from. They are just taken for granted as Axioms.

Those speculative conjectures are seriously intended to reveal "how things really are", not just as aesthetic poetry. Yet they lack the imprimatur of empirical Science. So, such imaginings could be construed as Hypothetical Metaphysics (useful for thinking), not as "knowingly fictional" (apart from multiverse movies) , and not as "universal truth".

I would add my own personal philosophical worldview to that list of pre-Bang speculations. And you are not expected to accept it on faith as a description of the post-Bang world. It is instead, a guide for thinking about philosophical Meta-physics (Ontology -- the Why of being), not empirical Physics (the How of evolving). :smile: