What was taken for real (out there, distinct and separate from us) is being questioned; it could all be a hallucination (in our heads). As for considering the world tentatively/provisionally real, I'm all for it, but note, the damage is already done. — Agent Smith

The simulation hypothesis is fun for computer nerds to contemplate, perhaps because they see no personal consequences of the notion of artificial Reality. In Existential Physics, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder admitted, "I quite like the idea that we live in a computer simulation. It gives me hope that things will be better on the next level." (heaven?) But that hope seems to be based on faith in the good intentions of the unknown programmers. She goes on to note that, "this simulation hypothesis . . . has been mostly ignored by physicists, but it enjoys a certain popularity among philosophers and people who like to think of themselves as intellectual. Evidently, it's more appealing the less you know about physics".

But, what does she know about computer simulations, except for the mathematical models that theoretical physicists create to emulate how the physical world actually works? She seems to think the alien simulations are actually patterned after traditional religious beliefs about super-intelligent super-powerful beings. "The belief in an omniscient being that can interfere with the laws of nature, but that for some reason remains hidden from us, is a common element of monotheistic religions". Unfortunately, my own explorations of philosophical origins questions are typically placed in the obsolete notion basket, without any knowledge of the actual proposal. It suggests a logical explanation why an immaterial programmer would remain forever beyond the reach of our materialist metaphors. And why the programmer allows the program to run without miraculous interference.

Reality Simulation games would be no fun for emotion-driven players, if they couldn't play god, by occasionally over-riding the program. But an abstract bodiless self-existent Programmer (pure Logic, pure Math, pure Information) would presumably have no hormonal urges to over-ride the original end-state-intent (teleology) of the program : the Final Cause output. That makes sense to me, but Hossenfelder might still reject it as philosophical speculation beyond the hard physical evidence. But, that's OK, I don't pretend to be a physicist. Just an explorer beyond the edges of the known world. :nerd:

PS__ Hossenfelder goes on to say that "physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed step-by step, like a computer code". But what if the universe functions more like a non-digital integrated brain. . . . . Just philosophical fodder for unfettered thought.

UNCHARTED TERRITORY --- HERE BE DRAGONS

DOES THE UNIVERSE RESEMBLE THE HUMAN BRAIN?
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-human-brain-resemble-universe.html

What did I say that was a smear? — T Clark

That was not directed at you personally, but characterized the depressing downward trend of below-the-belt ideological argumentation, on a question originally raised by a prominent professional philosopher, but linked by an easier-to-besmirch amateur.

As usual, this whole thread has gone off-topic into an indiscriminate mud-slinging battle. I was hoping that my last post to you was my last word on that off-topic. But . . . I just found a new article on Nautilus, a cutting-edge science-oriented online magazine, that reminded me of the "woo-boo" labels on TPF. I wouldn't bother to bother, but you seem to be somewhat more flexible than some others who are alert to quash non-conforming "interpretations" on the unsettled fringes on the "Foundations of Science".

Caleb Scharf is an accredited astronomer & astrobiologist, who feels confident that his credentials allow him to propose a sci-fi notion of mysterious world-creating "aliens", without raising judgmental eyebrows, as long as the aliens are assumed without evidence to be mere biological creatures, just like us, only much more advanced intellectually. Maybe even literally AI, artificial intelligence, existing perhaps due to some un-fathomable pre-big-bang artifice.

But similar super-intelligent creator-concepts for the ultimate source of physical laws -- defined by logic, not by physics -- (e.g. Plato's LOGOS) -- but with just as much physical evidence (the mathematical-logical laws themselves) -- are declared to be beyond-the-pale for Philosophers & non-scientists, who project from the space-time world into the unknowable time-before-time, when god-like aliens could experiment with coded laws to create a simulated reality within Reality.

Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? Can't we have a little speculative fun here, without getting stoned as apostates from The Absolute Truth, as interpreted by whom (the physics Pope)? Does a degree in physics qualify you to make--up "crazy" stuff? Or should that kind of free-thinking be banned for non-law-abiding un-fettered philosophers, on a forum with no empirical output ? :nerd:


Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence? :
Alien life could be so advanced it becomes indistinguishable from physics.
"But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—as crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements".
https://nautil.us/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence-236218/

The meaning of "BEYOND THE PALE" is offensive or unacceptable.

If I've misrepresented your argument, tell me which of my statements you don't agree with. Tell me what your conclusion is if not the one I state in the last bullet. — T Clark

Don't worry about it. Just as you read something from your own imagination into my posts, I read some un-stated assumptions into your post. So, we're even.

Now, we can get back to the OP question about philosophical deference (diffidence) to Gospel Science on the debatable fringes of Physics : "Foundational Questions of Physics". The survey found that there is no single "consensus" interpretation of those fundamental questions of physics*1. Yet, some interpreters like to pretend that borderline (meta-physical) issues are authoritatively settled, and beyond question*2.

Although I quoted part of Pigliucci's discussion about "What does it mean to interpret Quantum Physics", It would be helpful to read the whole Skeptical Inquirer article, so you won't go-off on a wild tangent. No need to imagine heretical beliefs on my part. Heresy assumes some unquestionable, orthodox opinion established by authoritarian priests.

Besides, does it strike you as ironic that such a "woo-monger", as others have mis-labeled me, would be reading Skeptical Inquirer magazine. I have subscribed to SI, and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. So, I'm well-informed on the erroneous beliefs & methods of pseudo-science. Yet, I'm also well-aware of how defenders of the faith can rise-up in self-righteous anger at any un-conventional interpretations of the unsettled borderlands of knowledge. Philosophical pioneers, undaunted by inquisitors of orthodoxy, explore the realm of reputed dragons in search of philosophical wisdom. Besides, that fuzzy area off the map is not-yet settled Science, so it's open to interpretation. :cool:


*1. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum weirdness was proposed a century ago, in order to settle the acrimonious debates -- including accusations of "woo" -- that caused a great disturbance in the force of Physics. Several of the pioneers turned to Eastern philosophy -- often labeled derogatorily as "mysticism" -- in search of ways to interpret their counter-intuitive and non-classical observations. And the debate-goes-on to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

*2. Quantum mysticism :
Olav Hammer stated that Werner Heisenberg was so interested in India that he got the nickname "The Buddha". "However," states Hammer, "in Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy (1959) there is no substantial trace of quantum mysticism;" and adds "In fact, Heisenberg discusses at length and endorses the decidedly non-mystical Copenhagen interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

This was the term you introduced into the discussion. — apokrisis

Actually, It was Pigliucci, who objected to the use of such a derisive slang term "woo" in a philosophical or scientific context. It's a short-hand emotive term for "I'm right, you're wrong", and avoids a lot of uncertainty & rational thinking. So, It is very popular among self-righteous posters on this forum. And, the question of "who introduced it", is moot.

Anyway, all of this hand-waving is beside the question, of "foundational issues of physics", which Pigliucci noted "smells like metaphysics". Are we discussing "settled" physics here, or questions that go beyond (meta) our understanding of physical reality? What are you so afraid of, that you feel the need to defend an orthodox interpretation of "foundational physics"? Did someone warn you that metaphysical ghosts will get you, if you stray from the true faith in physics?

I'm just kidding. I don't doubt that you know more than me about some technical aspects of borderline physics. But these "woo boo" diversions get tiresome, so I have to poke fun, in hopes of getting back on track : "philosophical diffidence" toward all-knowing Physics. :wink:

You may find it offensive. But it ain't racist. — apokrisis

In the immortal words of late-night TV philosopher Craig Ferguson, "you're a racist, man". He says, in response to any top-down authoritarian shout-down. :joke:

But anyhow, the way you throw the 2014 revision of the Bicep data into the conversation as some kind of "gotcha" is indicative of how little you are aware of the constraints on the conversation to be had. It shows you don't really know what you are talking about. — apokrisis

I'm not familiar with the "bicep data" that you claim I "threw" into the conversation as a "gotcha". Sounds like you know more about what I'm talking about than I do. Why don't you read my mind, and tell me more about that "bee in the bonnet". Or is it buzzing in your bonnet? You keep swatting at something I can't see. :joke:

As a science writer I was indeed professionally engaged in delving into varieties of woo mongering in the 1990s, from psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence, to all sorts.
So this was woo at the academic level - professors with labs. :grin: — apokrisis

Good for you! Does that professional "engagement" with word-processing certify your authority to label people's opinions with the technical term "woo". Did that "n*gger" word come from Physics or Psychology or Popular Science? Historically, Racists have justified their prejudice with scientific evidence. They too, "engaged" in propagating personal repugnance disguised as scientific facts.

How do you dismiss the opinions of professional physicists & neurologists, and cosmologists, some with labs, who entertain fringey notions of "psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence". Their opinions are all over the internet, for those inclined to look. And they too, face institutional discrimination based on philosophical prejudice. Maybe "woo-boo" is actually a contest of political ideologies, not impartial Science. :cool:

The Ideology of Racism : Misusing Science to Justify Racial Discrimination :
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/ideology-racism-misusing-science-justify-racial-discrimination

Here is a summary of the argument you have presented in this discussion, as I understand it:

Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are controversial.
1. Qualified scientists can't agree on the proper interpretations or even if any interpretation is needed or possible.
2. Based on this, a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics says "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics."
3. Based on that confusion and lack of consensus, Gnomon is justified in any speculation he makes about quantum mechanics or related metaphysics. — T Clark

Unstated assumptions : Speculation Bad! Metaphysics Bad!

Did you omit a prejudicial step, in your logical calculation of that damning conclusion from an unfavorable reading of the OP? Would you apply such biased reasoning (sophistry) to Massimo Pigliucci, too. In the Skeptical Inquirer article, he implied that he has had accusing fingers pointing at him. Following your logic, you could conclude that, " based on that confusion and lack of consensus" Pigliucci "is justified in any speculation . . . ." Not so easy to denigrate "a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics", is it?

Do you think the forum moderators should ban all posts that can be labeled by detractors as "metaphysics"? Should they change the name from The Philosophy Forum to The Empirical Science Forum, or perhaps the Anti-Meta-Physics Forum? What credible topics would we talk about? The possibility of creating a man-made black-hole universe in an atom smasher? Or is that too speculative? Where is the "evidence"? :smile:

Note -- TC, Generally, you seem to be more open-minded toward debatable ideas than the zealous "Anti-Woo Boo-Crew". So, I apologize if anything in this post sounds like a personal attack. It's hard to respond to smears without getting sh*t on your hands.


At Scientia Salon, philosopher Massimo Pigliucci admits to “always having had a troubled relationship with metaphysics.” He summarizes the reasons that have, over the course of his career, made it difficult for him to take the subject seriously. Surprisingly -- given that Pigliucci is, his eschewal of metaphysics notwithstanding, a professional philosopher -- none of these reasons is any good. Or rather, this is not surprising at all, since there simply are no good reasons for dismissing metaphysics -- and could not be, given that all purported reasons for doing so themselves invariably embody unexamined metaphysical assumptions. Thus, as Gilson famously observed, does metaphysics always bury its undertakers.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/03/pigliucci-on-metaphysics.html

Is the Big Bang a black hole? :
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis

What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time? Historically, the gathering evidence for anthropic initial settings made the BBT sound too much like a Creation Event. So, cosmologists went in search of plausible explanations for such large-scale organized structures that could be accidental, instead of intentional. :smile:


Evidence for cosmic inflation wanes
The biggest result in cosmology in a decade fades into dust
https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-cosmic-inflation-wanes

Cosmic Inflation :
It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

SPECULATION INTO THE TIME BEFORE TIME

What defines knowledge is that you can act on it. It is pragmatic. It is a model of reality that results in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion.

But that is understandable. While most official quantum interpretations just want to assimilate its mathematical structures to a classical metaphysics perspective, the woo-merchants are trying to assimilate them to their romantic notions about mind and spirit. The metaphysical grounding ain't even classical, but animistic or theistic. — apokrisis

Is that your official definition as an accredited expert on knowledge-in-general? Or is that just your layman's opinion on a debatable question? Can you give an example of "knowledge" you have contributed to this forum that has "resulted in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion"? What "official quantum interpretation" do you accept as authoritative & definitive for settling differences of opinion on The Philosophy Forum?

Are you a credentialed expert on "woo mongering"? Or are you just placing a prejudical label on ideas that offend your personal belief system? What formal rules of evidence do you use to formulate your confidently expressed personal opinion? Can you cite book, chapter & verse to support your "interpretation" of "animistic or theistic woo". Or is it just juvenile schoolyard name-calling? Why should we accept your scientistic booing as "knowledge"?

The OP, and Pigliucci's Skeptical Inquirer article, were motivated by such knee-jerk responses to quantum & metaphysical topics, that are characteristic of philosophical diffidence toward the absolute authority of Supreme Science. Ironically, they are, in my personal experience, expressed boldly & concisely, in a manner similar to the well-rehearsed creed-doctrines of Ideologies & religions (e.g. Scientism). But, as a non-believer, I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of Physics or Metaphysics. :cool:

Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional.
http://sociology.morrisville.edu/readings/STS101/Philosophy-TheoryOfKnowledge%20-%20flattened.pdf
Note -- which category do we discuss on this forum?

Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon
That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject. — T Clark

Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? Do you have relevant accreditation to verify that your own "opinions are credible" on the subject of Philosophical Diffidence (deferring to Science on philosophical questions), and Foundational Questions of Physics? Based on what expertise do you label an expression of laymanship to be "facile"? Just askin'. :smile:

PS__The quote above sounds like a good example of "philosophical diffidence" : e.g. non-professional TPF posters have no right to comment on physical topics. Just stick to your facile logic-chopping.


Facile : (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Laymanship :a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field "For a layman, he knows a lot about the law."

Philosophical Logic Chopping : Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Logic-Chopping

members often employed QM or speculative and theoretical physics as a springboard to posit a veritable cosmos of transcendent possibilities.
For my own part, the subject is only of interest to see what others do with it. I am not a physicist. — Tom Storm

I too am not a physicist, So anything I say about Quantum Physics on a philosophy forum should not be taken as an authoritative pronouncement on physical Science. As non-credentialed laymen, we're not revealing confirmed facts on TPF; just sharing ideas & opinions about open questions that have not been answered definitively by empirical methods. As Piggliucci said, some of them "smell like metaphysics". If professional scientists feel free to speculate on transcendent non-empirical possibilities (beyond space-time, or immaterial mathematical simulations), why should amateur philosophers feel bound to solid ground?

Some of the diffident posters on TPF -- bowing to supreme Science -- seem to think "feckless" philosophy should be limited to the self-imposed empirical rules of physical Science. Hence, even professional philosophers like Pigliucci have no right to philosophize beyond the current state of scientific knowledge. Ironically, some of the popular interpretations that the Foundational Issues survey listed are literally ascientific explorations of "transcendent possibilities". So as I said above, "according to the survey, it seems that I'm in good company, along with credentialed scientists who postulate such ascientific (philosophical) notions as Many Worlds, Multiverses, and pre-big-bang Inflation".

As Pigliucci noted, the current state of Quantum Physics and Cosmology is anything but "settled science". So, I don't feel so cowed by the technological prowess of Physical Science, that I cannot have a little fun with transcendent possibilities. My own area of interest ("favorite interpretation") is primarily item "e" in TClark's graphic : Information Theoretical. And that subject matter gets dangerously close to forbidden territory of Mind & Consciousness. Even the sober scientists studying IIT, admit to the "strong possibility" of New Agey Panpsychism. :gasp:


Feckless : weak, ineffective, incompetent, futile

What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof
Pragmatic, I salute you! — Agent Smith

To a pragmatic non-philosopher a realistic simulation would make no difference. But inquiring minds want to know. For example, Descartes, skeptical of his own ability to know the ultimate truth, postulated that a "demon" could be deceiving him, except for the solipsistic feeling of knowing thyself. Today, we might call that demon an extraterrestrial Alien, or a mundane AI that has miraculously become omniscient & omnipotent.

However, Descartes seemed to be confident that his skepticism would reveal any "glitches" in the Matrix. That self-assurance was based on his "mind-better-known-than-body doctrine". So, the "difference" for a philosopher seems to be confidence in his own reasoning ability. However, if you discover no glitches, despite being alert for them, pragmatically it's all the same to you. Unless, you are an impractical idealist philosopher by nature. :cool:

mind-better-known-than-body doctrine :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

Perhaps, but the winnowing of experience separates the wisdom from the babble. Yet, Age alone doesn't make you wise, it just makes you old. Wisdom is the ability to know the difference between What-Is and What-Ought-To-Be. :smile:

Why aim for "harmony"? — 180 Proof
@Gnomon
Good question, mon ami! As far as I can tell, there's no escaping harmony. Let's say we have disharmony - this with harmony is again harmony; iterate this to ∞ if you wish and/but you'll always end up harmony. It's amazing this yin-yang concept - if you oppose it, you endorse it! :cool: — Agent Smith

Try to convince the Ukrainians that peace & harmony is inevitable. To the contrary, Philosophers of East & West have argued mostly for bottom-up happiness & harmony. For example, Confucius vainly tried to convince the rulers of his culture that the common people would meekly follow a virtuous lord, but would rebel against a vicious leader. Presumably, if individuals are happy, then the collective should be happy, and society should be harmonious & prosperous. But, political leaders of all times & places have tended to concern themselves primarily with harmony at the top, among their peers, leaving the hoi polloi to their own devices. Hypothetically, If Putin is happy, then everybody who counts (oligarchs) will be happy, and national harmony will reign. :joke: irony

Similarly, the Epicurean notion of harmony was focused mainly on stability at the top of society. Assuming that if the rich & powerful were happy, the whole society should be harmonious -- as far as they (the cream of society) were concerned . But the Platonists & Idealists envisioned a more homogeneous happiness. The Epicurean worldview could be narrowly pragmatic, because it was primarily a view from the top of society. Hence, their self-centered ideal was personal Happiness, instead of general Harmony. Yet most Eastern & Western philosophers have concluded that you can't have personal Happiness without public Harmony. Of course, you are the best judge of what makes you happy, but, as a social being, you also have the innate ability (Empathy) to predict what will make other beings happy, so they will work together as a team, instead of a disorganized mob of MEs.

You could also summarize that the Epicureans tended to be Materialistic Reductionists, whereas the Platonists were Idealistic & Holistic. A similar top-down perspective seems to be the crux of Ayn Rand's argument for "The Virtue of Selfishness" She labeled that attitude as Objectivism, because what matters most is your own empirical experience of happiness. Her anti-socialist arguments were similar to Adam Smith's apology for Capitalism. He turned the socialist hierarchy of concerns upside-down, with the optimistic notion that a rising tide lifts all boats. The implication is that if I'm free to pursue my own happiness, then everybody else should be happy. Unfortunately, people at the bottom of the economic & political hierarchy may not see that theory as realistic. Anyway, idealistic generalizing philosophers have typically had little influence on political & economic leaders. Which may be why social harmony has always seemed to be anything but inevitable. :cool:

PS__This post is not about politics or economics, so don't get hung-up on Socialist vs Capitalist arguments. General harmony may be best approximated by meeting in the middle : not either/or, but both Idealism and Realism. Yin/Yang is a dynamic balance -- a dialectic -- always on the tipping point.

The Virtue of Selfishness :
Rand acknowledged in the book's introduction that the term 'selfishness' was not typically used to describe virtuous behavior, but insisted that her usage was consistent with a more precise meaning of the term as simply "concern with one's own interests". The equation of selfishness with evil, Rand said, had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness

"Harmony, on the other hand, is more comprehensive. It includes happiness but also transcends it. It’s about expressing the many different aspects of our nature in balanced and adaptive ways. It’s about honoring our diverse and competing needs and values".
https://thinkgrowprosper.com/blog/harmony

Why is Spinoza an Epicurean?
Spinoza is pointedly silent about his philosophical allegiances. The only time he lets his guard down is in a letter to Boxel from September 1674 in which he positions himself in the epicurean camp (Ep. 56). Given this, it is surprising that in the multitude of Spinozas in the reception of his work an epicurean Spinoza is nowhere to be found – with a few exceptions that I discuss in the next section. I argue that Spinoza is an epicurean because he stages a dialectic between authority and utility.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv136c4cr

I was thinkin' more along the lines of ODDS is GODS. Miracles are highly improbable, not impossible (re the problem of induction), events and they're considered divine acts. In addition, the god of the gaps clearly demonstrates we worship ignorance.
Probability is the math of ignorance — Wikipedia — Agent Smith

I wouldn't say that humans "worship ignorance", but I could suggest that people fear "Uncertainty", and worship "Hope". Religious people are not idiots*1, so they can understand that invisible deities are dubious. But when under threat from various invisible agents of Evil, they play the odds, and bet on the Good Guy, behind the curtain of ignorance, that everyone else believes in. For example, the typical barefoot peasant in ancient times, had never seen their King or Pharaoh, but they could directly experience the consequences of disobeying the top-down social laws governing their behavior, and limiting their freedom.

Many Atheist arguments against the notion of an omnipotent & omnibenevolent deity point to the imperfection of the creation. But Leibniz seemed to acknowledge the obvious defects, and to ignore the unrealistic Garden of Eden myth. So, he focused his abstract mathematical argument on the Real world of ups & downs that we know directly. He didn't propose that our universe is a perfect world, but merely the "the best of all possible worlds". Which implies that his "perfect" god could not recreate heaven on Earth. Implying that H/er range of possibilities was limited for some self-imposed reason. The Genesis myth even hints at what that limitation was : human Reason (bestowing the freedom to choose). In the idyllic Garden, the immature humans were essentially naive animals with hands, but no ability to understand how to intellectually choose Good over Evil. The wily serpent was a metaphor for the short-term appeal of the Evil path.

Of course, most animals intuitively act in their own self-interest, to preserve Life and to avoid Death. But humans add the ability to Reason from what-is to what-if, in order to prepare for the long-term future -- the strait & narrow path. And it's that uniquely human talent for projecting from Now into the Future, that gives them more choices than mere animals, including chimps & dolphins. Hence, humans have developed herd instincts into world-wide cultures that redirect Nature to serve human interests (e.g air conditioning). Naturally, what's good for my local comfort is not necessarily good for the global environment. So, our choices always involve trade-offs.

Therefore, I conclude that a top-down Pre-Destined perfect world was not an option for this experiment in Free Will. Here, I'm reading-into Leibniz' argument, in order to explain why the Real world is not absolutely perfect, but the "best possible" compromise between Freedom and Determinism*2. Ironically, that trade-off between all-good & all-evil, implies that the Programmer of Evolution was not Omni-benevolent, but Omni-Potent, in the sense of possessing the Potential for both Good and Evil. I'll leave it to you to decide if, limited Free Will (human Reason) is a good-enough trade-off for off-setting the Hegelian Dialectic, zig-zagging between the poles of Good & Evil consequences of human choice. This "best of all possible worlds" is imperfect, but good-enough for survival of rational animals and moral agents*3. :smile:

*1. Theism apologist, "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz(1646–1716) was one of the great thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is known as the last “universal genius”. . . . "Leibniz presented a number of arguments for the existence of God, which represent great contributions to philosophical knowledge." . . ."Certainly only a fool could believe that it is the best world possible. But, Leibniz speaks on behalf of the fool, with an argument that has essentially the following structure" . . ."To the more difficult question whether there is a better world with perhaps a little less genocide and natural disaster Leibniz can only respond that, if so, God would have brought it into actuality. And this, of course, is to say that there really is no better possible world."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/

*2. Rationalism versus Fatalism -- Freewill Within Determinism :
By taking the long view, they can accept that G*D is neither Good nor Evil, but BothAnd.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

*3. Apparently, another genius, Voltaire, missed Leibniz' implication that the possibilities for creating a space-time world were finite. Hence, his satirical novel Candide. Since Leibniz referred to his mathematical deity as "perfect", I suspect that even he was not completely convinced by his own argument. Today though, we know more about the initial conditions, and natural laws, that function as limitations on progressive evolution.

That doesn't clarify what you meant by "all gods are possibilities" ... possibilities of what? — 180 Proof
Why? There are many definitions of God - from the OOO God to a malus Deus - and all of them jibe with or can be made to with what we know as reality. In short we can't rule out any of 'em as incompatible with our experiences. If you follow the theism-atheism feud, the back and forth between these two warring factions, you'll immediately see what I mean. — Agent Smith

The origin of our world in a sudden act of creation is now generally accepted as a scientific fact, not a religious myth. But Science is limited by tradition and methodology to post-Big Bang evidence. So, any speculation beyond that limit is inherently ascientific, but legitimately philosophical. Undaunted, some curious scientists have put on their philosophical hats (dunce caps??) and projected from what is known, with reasonable probability, to what is unknown & unknowable & improbable. Such conjectures may be in the realm of statistical possibility, but can't be quantified in terms of probabilities, due to lack of evidence.

That the initial conditions (e.g. max energy potential, min entropy ; something from nothing) are highly unlikely is undeniable. Yet, we can A> ignore it as an unimportant detail, or B> label it as an inexplicable mystery, or C> accept it as a challenge to human reasoning. For example, particle physicists may not concern themselves with why the original "particle" (Singularity) miraculously blinked into existence already charged with the potential energy & laws for a whole universe. But Astrophysicists, cannot just ignore the obvious implications (logical possibilities) of such an astronomically unlikely initial state. The best they've come-up with to-date though, is magical Inflation (The Great Inflator), or unfalsifiable Multiverse (The Great Beyond) : artificial God substitutes.

The beginning of the reality curve has been calculated down to subatomic Planck scale. So, we can logically extrapolate the curve backward using mathematical analysis*1. But, because the odds against the BB are so incredibly high, we have good reasons "to be suspicious"*2 . So, we are faced with three options: A> don't worry about it ; B> postulate a pre-existing universe to lower the odds ; or C> hypothesize a pre-existing Dealer to stack the deck*3. Hence, it comes down to a choice between ODDS or GODS. The only physical evidence for either is Reality with a big question mark (?).

Multiverses and Gods are imaginary possibilities of something-from-nothing-for-no-reason versus something-from-Potential-on-purpose. The OOO gods and the Great Flying Spaghetti monster are both satirical absurdities, and not intended to be taken seriously. But creator deities have been taken seriously by most wise men down through the ages. Ironically, a great unknowable Universe of Universes is taken seriously today by a few gambling speculators, based on minuscule mathematical possibilities. :smile:

*1. Billions of years of normal evolution compressed into an instant vertical line (by magic?)


*2. When we observe low-probability events in our Universe, we have every right to be suspicious.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-probability-misleads-us-about-the-universe-4f96f17d5b5f

*3. Eternal SpaceTime or Eternal Deity :
The preexisting spacetime would be quantized (preexisting meaning the matrix universe within which the fluctuation would occur) and
A fluctuation would give rise to a virtual particle or virtual energy which would be so massive that its conjugate duration of time of allowed existence, under the Heisenberg formula, would be bigger than the reigning quantum of time in the matrix universe, so that the only outcome allowed under the math would be that said particle becomes real : BANG)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-a-Big-Bang-occurring-right-now-due-to-quantum-fluctuations

GOD PARODIES : GOLB and GROB GOB GLOB GROD


https://adventuretimeconspiracies.tumblr.com/post/48374563533/deities-of-ooo-a-compilation

our Mars ambitions, let them be fulfilled not by terraforming (adapting the planet to us), but via evolution (adapting us to the planet). — Agent Smith

In the Sci-Fi TV series Expanse, Earthlings who lived for generations on Mars, became adapted to its low gravity. Unfortunately, upon return to Earth gravity, that evolved change became a mal-adaptation. :gasp:

Since this is the case, can it be rational to think premises of a deductive argument are true and yet waver on the conclusion being true? — MichaelJYoo

I don't know if "this" is the case, but rational thinkers can provisionally, or temporarily, accept stated premises, without committing to a conclusion drawn from them. Unfortunately, most people are poor judges of statistical probability. That's the whole point of Bayesian Inference or "subjective probability".

Since the information (facts?), upon which we reason, is always limited, and possibly incomplete or erroneous, it makes sense to recalculate your initial estimate of truth (probability) as more information comes availiable. Modus Ponens is an idealized model of reasoning, and may be how computers think, in principle (garbage in-- garbage out). But human reasoning is usually influenced by prior beliefs, momentary feelings, and areas of ignorance or misinformation. So, it's reasonable to doubt your own reasoning in uncertain situations. Our brains evolved to make quick intuitive judgments from incomplete information. Not to statistically analyze precise premises for numerical probability. :nerd:


Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Judgment Under Uncertainty :
People appear to be poor at Bayesian reasoning (just as Tversky & Kahneman claim) when they are given problems that express the relevant information as percents and that ask them to judge the probability of a single event (e.g., “What is the chance that a person who tests positive for the disease actually has it?”). But a different picture emerges when information is presented in a more ecologically valid format.
https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/topics/stats.htm

↪Gnomon
:up: — Agent Smith

Note -- If a shooter at a target range hits the center twenty-six times in a row, would you look for an abnormal (Preternatural*1) explanation : super-human marksmanship, or magic, or cheating? — Gnomon

Is the analogy accurate? If so, how would Ockham answer the question?

180boo challenges the logical possibility of a First Cause (pre-existent marksman) with a sarcastic "Yeah, but which god may exist?". The intention is to get you to commit to a particular anthro-morphic god model. Which he can shoot-down with Science.

However, Enformationism is not a scientific thesis, and does not pretend to have direct evidence or revealed knowledge to support any traditional god-model. That's why I use ambiguous terms (e.g. "G*D") to describe the Big Bang sharp-shooter. Impersonal abstract attributes are inferred from real-world evidence*2 that some kind of First Cause is logically necessary to explain the contingent existence of our space-time world. That's not religious Belief, just philosophical Logic.

Ancient philosophers, using unaided reasoning, labeled that same existential necessity with different names for the same abstract concept : Brahman, Tao, Logos, etc.*3. What would you call the Initial Step in 14-billion-year series of events? A cosmic coincidence??? :cool:


*1. Preternatural : "beyond what is normal or natural".

*2. Astronomical evidence points back to a dimensionless point in sub-Planck time before space-time. A common retort is that the concept of time-before-time is like "what's north of the north pole?" But that physical spherical geometric analogy does not apply to a dimensionless Singularity. So, If you take that evidence at face value, you are faced with scientific evidence for a "creation event" of something from nothing. What would you call the Cause of such an un-natural event : a reverse Black Hole? Where's the evidence?

*3. "[u]Brahman[/u] is a metaphysical concept of Hinduism referring to the ultimate unchanging reality, that is uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, the cause, the foundation, the source and the goal of all existence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

To me Enformationism, what I could grasp of it, manages to capture all 3 aspects of God: [omni]benevolence (stoic virtue, living in accord with the laws of nature), [omni]science (science), and [omni]potence (EnFormy, the creative force).

I know your philosophy isn't theistic in the sense that Christianity is, but I couldn't help but notice the connection between it and the Christian God's attributes as outlined above. A happy coincidence? Hard to say, but worth investigating in my humble opinion. Maybe it reveals an underlying imtuition that is universal, differing only in the specifics while being same in spirit if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Your grasp of Enformationism is still incomplete : it's not about God, but about Nature*1. However, as far as we know, Nature is not eternal or self-existent, so a philosophical First Cause is still necessary to explain the Big Bang beginning of the on-going creative process of Evolution*2. And it would be an astronomically unlikely "coincidence" for a random thermodynamic process to begin with fine-tuned settings that are essential for the emergence of living & thinking organisms*3.

Darwin's evolutionary process --- of random errors (mutations) woven into self-correcting organisms by goal-directed selection criteria --- is obviously not entirely materialistic & mechanistic*4. That's because, in our experience, undirected mechanisms (e.g. perpetual motion machines) do not produce self-reproducing baby mechanisms. The only natural mechanisms that do perpetuate themselves are Holistic organisms, which are more-than the sum of their parts. The "more-than" is goal-directed design criteria (information), as in computer programs. So, the logical necessity for a goal-setting Programmer, or some kind, is a logical leap into the unknown time-before-time. Even atheistic cosmologists make that pre-bang "set-up" assumption, including pre-existing Energy (causation) and eternal "laws" to control the interactions of matter & energy. They don't deny the "fine-tuning", but merely the intention behind those "anthropic" settings.

One name for that eternal fine-tuning Programmer is "Multiverse", which merely multiplies what already exists in the physical world, in order to explain its beginning without recourse to an intentional Creator*5. But, in any computer program, it's the ultimate Intention (question) of the Programmer that sets the initial state (hence the aim) of the computation process (output or answer). I don't know the question or the answer, and I know nothing about the First Cause of the universe, but I can make some educated guesses about the FC's "attributes". The basic logical assumption is that there can be nothing in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. But, clearly there's no Omniscience, or Omnipotence, or Omnibenevolence in the creation, so we can only infer such qualities in an eternal (timeless) & infinite (spaceless) Creator.

In eternity, anything that can happen will happen. Or at least, that's the assumption behind the Multiverse hypothesis. But, Nature has none of those properties, so I don't attribute them to my Spinozan Nature-G*D. Which is definitely not patterned after the Christian God. However, as you noted,
almost all philosophical & religious traditions have intuited a basic set of attributes for their First Cause postulations : Brahman, Tao, Logos, Allah. But the existence of evil in our world implies that Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are antithetical. :cool:

*1. Specifically, about Nature, in view of non-classical & counter-intuitive Quantum Physics, and the non-physical forms of Generic Information (e.g. ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc.)

*2. Plato & Aristotle assumed their world was eternal, but other evidence led them to infer that a First Cause of Causation (motion, change, evolution) was logically necessary.

*3. Since the Greeks were avid mathematicians & rationalists, they inferred that the First Cause of the world must be orderly & reasonable (not random & irrational), hence LOGOS was their label for a non-physical non-anthropic Creator. Cynics today though, tend to downplay human intelligence. Because it is not perfect & omniscient, compared to what?

*4. Darwinian Programming : "There is a famous [mis]quote attributed to Darwin: ‘ It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. While most likely Darwin didn’t say it, the principle behind it still stands. Nowadays this property is known as ‘evolvability’." https://accu.org/journals/overload/20/109/ignatchenko_1911/
Note -- Adaptability requires A> intentions, B> feedback loops, C> course changes. A + B + C + ? = Holistic Intelligence (? = interaction, interdependence, sharing of information). Humanity as a species, has occupied almost all ecological niches on Earth, and are in the process of colonizing off-worlds. What were the odds of that eventuality when the Singularity went Bang?

*5. Fine Tuning : Skeptical physicist Hossenfelder asks : "isn't it peculiar, they ask, that the universe is the way it is, so we can be the way we are?" That's an "ascientific" philosophical question. So, later she says, "most scientists dismiss this idea out of hand, but I think it's worth thinking about" (philosophically, not scientifically).
"The issue is this. The currently known laws of nature contain twenty-six constants. . . . It's extremely unlikely that these constants would just coincidentally happen to have exactly the values that allow for our existence. Therefore, the universe as we observe it requires an explanation . . . . However, the multiverse hypothesis doesn't explain anything". Existential Physics
Note -- If a shooter at a target range hits the center twenty-six times in a row, would you look for an abnormal explanation : super-human marksmanship, or magic, or cheating?

The opposition from the science guys and the lukewarm reception from religious folks you're met with is in my humble opinion because ... — Agent Smith

I think I see what you are suggesting. But Enformationism is neither Mathematical (intellectual) nor Musical (emotional), it is instead a general philosophical & metaphorical Worldview, which reveals no new scientific or mathematical facts to the stock of human knowledge. Its primary contribution is to support ancient Holistic (e.g. Taoism ; Idealism ; Stoicism , etc) philosophies with cutting-edge (reductive) scientific knowledge (e.g quantum & information), and Einsteinian Relativity (POV framing).

So the "lukewarm" reception is due primarily to its negative implications for some dearly-held beliefs, such as the modern ideology of Scientism. It also has little aesthetic appeal to most religious people, because it offers no plan of salvation in the hereafter, and no consoling symbolism & ceremonies in the here & now. So, what limited appeal it may have is for rational intellectuals with a mostly pragmatic way of thinking. Ironically, antipathy & opposition comes mainly from those who believe they have arrived at unassailable Truth, in the form of some Orthodox doctrine or scientific model of reality.

But, even among those rational & philosophical types, some are activists, motivated to change the world*1, not just to understand it and adapt to it. They will be disappointed with Enformationism. Also, even traditional religious types, with an intellectual bent -- such as my family -- their hopes for a better world tomorrow were raised along with their upbringing. And the only hope they see for a "fallen" world is a supernatural Messiah. Enformationism does not describe a world-fallen-from-grace though, but a world that is evolving exactly as intended by the First Cause "Programmer".

In the gradual unfolding of the Evolutionary Program, pain & suffering and dashed hopes are due, not to demonic beings, but to inherent natural laws & forces. This Stoic*2 attitude toward the Real world has been taught by sages for ages, from Plato to Lao Tse to Buddha to the post-enlightenment Deists. However, in view of our post-enlightenment power over Nature, we find our remaining powerlessness hard to accept. Our aspirational moon rockets still blow-up, not due to divine opposition, but to 14 billion-year-old natural laws, and human errors.

Unfortunately, human reasoning is always based on limited information, and is influenced by history & tradition. So its prescriptions & solutions for the "human condition" can be expected to to conflict with one another. For example, general Deism*3 has fragmented into a variety of -isms over the years : PanTheism, PanDeism, PanEnDeism, etc. Enformationism is none of those, and all of those. It proposes no official orthodox position on any topic. Due to our limited access to factual information on our lonely little blue planet, and also to the ambiguity of "facts" on the Quantum foundation of Physics right under our feet, all truths are temporary & contingent. Does that sound like a religion to you? Admittedly, it has some similarity to New Age worldviews, but only in so far as they accept various ancient holistic & naturalistic, but non-fatalistic philosophies. :cool:


*1. “The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.” ___Karl Marx
Note -- philosophers "change" the world with their ideas (living memes), not with guns (death). And such change-of-mind takes generations, requiring stoic patience.

*2. Stoicism :
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

*3. Deism :
Derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. Or more simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority. Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology (that is, God's existence is revealed through nature).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Daoism . . . . Does the God piece fit with reality as we know it. The problem is that the God that we want is incompatible with reality and the God that is compatible is one we don't want. Wicked! — Agent Smith

Good point! That's the problem with presenting a philosophical god-model that "fits with reality". Most people don't like Reality -- it hurts -- so they want their G*D to be ideal, like a knight in shining armor. Taoism was intended to be more realistic than that. Lao Tse did not describe the TAO as a conventional prayer-granting ancestor deity, and the word for "God" only appears once in the Tao De Ching. Nevertheless, the popular religions that sprang from the Tao root did include a variety of deities to be worshiped and prayed to.

So, I interpret the Tao, as more like Spinoza's impersonal-god-of-the philosophers (i.e. deus sive natura) The point you noted is that that the typical worshiper doesn't want an abstract nature-god, they want a god with the super-natural power to adapt capricious reality to their personal needs & wishes. Instead, Lao Tse faced the facts, and advised that we adapt ourselves to the reality of Nature. Such a nature-god is "compatible with reality" and with empirical Science; but not with human desires for a more perfect world. The "real world" is as good as it gets*1. And the natural "Way" follows the "path" of least resistance*2. Which is also a basic principle of Physics.*3 *4

Even theistic religions have been forced by centuries of poor response to prayers, to postpone perfection to a New World and a second Life. Consequently, parallel to their idealized & romantic god-models, most religions also offer pragmatic advice similar to that of Lao Tse's golden rule : " “If only the ruler and his people would refrain from harming each other, all the benefits of life would accumulate in the kingdom.”— Tao Te Ching. :smile:


*1. best of all possible worlds, in the philosophy of the early modern philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), the thesis that the existing world is the best world that God could have created.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/best-of-all-possible-worlds
Note -- a perfect world would be purely deterministic ( a heaven), but a world with rational free-will physical creatures must be less than perfect, in order to allow options. So Leibniz' "best" compromise solution to the Freewill within Determinism paradox was to make a good, but imperfect world. For example, the metaphorical Garden of Eden was perfect, but the humans were mere instinctive animals, with no way to reason between Good & Evil. After expulsion into the Real World, they had to learn to adapt to a less-than-perfect environment. If they felt cold, they learned to killed cold-adapted furry animals, and to wear their skins as clothing. Their food no longer hung low on trees, so they learned to eat the flesh of those cute furry animals.

*2. The path of least resistance is the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

*3. Principle of Least Action :
"“That is what we are going to use to calculate the true path. "
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html
Note -- "Tao" = path of least resistance

*4. The Principle of Least Action says that, in some sense, the true motion is the optimum out of all possible motions, The idea that the workings of nature are somehow optimal, suggests that nature is working in an efficient way, with minimal effort, to some kind of plan.
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/nsm10/PrincLeaAc.pdf
Note -- "Tao" = Stoic acceptance of imperfections

I don't see how subscribing to a yin-yang model and then delegitimizing opposition to that model is being faithful to one's philosophy. Even this position I adopt, against you, is/should be part of the whole you talk about. It's actually in your favor to engage with your detractors - it reinforces your position, specifically its BothAnd aspect. — Agent Smith

What are you calling "de-legitimizing" the opposition? I do make it a policy to avoid debating those who are dug-in. Dialoguing (win-win) is two-way sharing of views, and is the purpose of this forum. But Debating (win-lose) is a power struggle to defeat the other "position". Even in monistic Buddhism "It is not uncommon to find a variety of seemingly conflicting religious practices incorporated into the lives of Buddhists". That's one way to make peace, set-aside areas of conflict as unimportant. But 180 is not a Buddhist, and he is not compromising of his orthodox beliefs.

Again, you have misunderstood the "BothAnd" philosophy, so, we continue to dialogue in order to construct a mutual meaning that we can both accept. For 180, it may mean "selling-out to the enemy." To you, it seems to mean : "it's all good". To the contrary, "BothAnd" does not mean that Evil is just misunderstood Good, or that a whole is the arithmetic sum of its parts. I engage in vigorous back & forth dialogs on this forum all the time -- with posters who seem flexible in their opinions. So, 180 is the only "opponent" I typically ignore, to avoid wasting time on pointless power struggles. I have no wish to convert him to my own philosophical worldview. But he seems to find it offensive, and is motivated to show me the error of my beliefs. Or, at least to prove who is smarter.

180's arguments are typically articulated in the form of "you're wrong! and here's an orthodox science book that proves it!". Frustratingly, he seldom cites "book, chapter & verse". Like most religious true believers though, he places high value on authoritative Orthodoxy. Yet, to him, I suppose non-classical Quantum physics was like the Protestant Reformation : a slap in the face*1. Anyway, as I said above, I used to engage with 180 before I learned the wisdom of the old saying "don't wrestle with a pig, you'll both just get dirty . . . and the pig likes it". By now, he knows I'm just poking the pig to hear him squeal. Do you think less of me for that sardonic philosophical humor?

You seem to have misunderstood the BothAnd philosophy as a naive idealistic attitude, like that of the founding fathers of the USA : "all men are created free & equal". That high-minded phrase was interpreted by Emma Lazarus : "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore". Yet in the news today, the governor of Florida has imported wretched Mexicans from Texas, and exported them to Massachusetts. The Founders were well-intentioned, and their ideal was good, but in practice not all of those "yearning to breathe free" are welcome in Florida or Texas. Even those idealistic political Patriots, immediately ceased dialoging with their Fatherland, and declared war on jolly old England. That's how most Political arguments are resolved. But BothAnd is not a Political philosophy; it's a Philosophical philosophy. Unfortunately, 180 treats it like a Political assault on Scientific Orthodoxy, or a Religious heretical movement.

Perhaps BothAnd reminded you of Rousseau's rousing phrase, "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains," The BothAnd holistic worldview is not intended to address such real-world political or physical problems. It's not an attack on anything. So, I have never understood what set 180boo in antithetical opposition to such an inoffensive personal attitude : "be open-minded, look at alternatives before you choose a path". His dismissive responses to my posts seems to have something to do with my unconventional usage of the old Theological term "Metaphysics".

Yet, I have repeatedly explained that I'm not referring to Catholic Theology, but to the kind of topics that Aristotle discussed in the Metaphysics volume of his treatise on Physics : e.g. existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility*2. None of which is a physical object or substance, and none subject to empirical falisifiability. All of which are still topics of Philosophical discussion to this very day. Ironically, the first six volumes, which the Catholics labeled The Physics (Nature) introduced the notion of a god-like First Cause *3. So, 180 would do just as well to debate with Aristotle on Physics. Unless you are personally motivated to dialogue with a demagogue. Is that "delegitimizing", or simply calling a spade a shovel? He's called me worse, and it doesn't hurt my feelings. :joke:

PS___The smilie has ironic tongue-in-cheek, not tongue sticking out. But, 180 may interpret it as a juvenile counter-attack. I try to use humor to defuse, but some don't get the joke..
"If you say something tongue in cheek, you intend it to be understood as a joke, although you might appear to be serious".


*1. Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics :
Although quantum mechanics has predicted an extraordinary range of phenomena with unprecedented accuracy, it remains controversial. Bohr and Heisenberg pronounced it `a complete theory' in 1927, but Einstein never accepted it, and as late as 1989 John Bell charged it with dividing the world of physics. David Wick traces the history of this controversy and shows how it affects our very conception of what a scientific theory is all about.
https://www.nhbs.com/the-infamous-boundary-book

*2. What topics did Aristotle write about? :
His writings cover many subjects including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics, meteorology, geology, and government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

*3. Aristotle Physics :
The Physics takes its title from the Greek word phusis, which translates more accurately as “the order of nature.” The first two books of the Physics are Aristotle’s general introduction to the study of nature. The remaining six books treat physics itself at a very theoretical, generalized level, culminating in a discussion of God, the First Cause.

The universe is inside Krishna (you)! — Agent Smith

This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. :smile: .

Not trying to nit pick or fault you, but isn't your philosophy supposed to be like the USA is - welcoming to all, and I mean people from every corner of the world by that (inclusive)? Given so I find it hard to tally that with you engaging in arguments, even those involving naysayers (exclusive). — Agent Smith

No, you still miss the complementary perspective of BothAnd. It doesn't accept all opinions as equally true, but within any whole system, there is overlap in the middle, part true part false. As illustrated by a Venn diagram in Logic -- where True & False overlap -- there is an imperfect mixture of both red & blue opinions. Absolute truth could be anywhere in the diagram, but a human, standing on his local spot on the globe, can't see beyond his own horizon. Yet, we know by reasoning & experience that Relative Truth is often good enough for practical purposes, and it can often be found within your own shadow, but on your neighbor's side of the fence. For Absolutists & Perfectionists though, the other side of the fence, is by definition, False.

In the YinYang symbol, the same principle is illustrated by putting a small circle of the opposite color within each complementary half of the big circle. The ancient chinese sages intuited what Einstein discovered mathematically : that what you see (and believe to be true) is relative to the observer's frame of reference. Hence, only omniscient G*D can see the Truth in any situation. But Einstein, briefly imagining himself as omniscient, realized that "truth is relative". And he was modest enough to know that his imaginary G*D was on his side, only when he was on G*D's side, mathematically. :smile:






Unfortunately, some people are absolutists, and can't accept watered-down truth, to contaminate their idealized politicized (us vs them) worldview--- yes, I'm talking about you 180Boo. To Black vs Whiters, a fact is a fact, and there is no gray in-between. So, in order to make sense of apparently intelligent people holding contrasting opinions, they tell themselves that the one holding a "wrong" opinion is, at best mis-informed, or at worst a blithering idiot, pretending to engage in philosophical discourse. Fortunately, such extreme Contrast (100%True versus 100%False) thinkers are rare. But, online philosophical forums allow them to imagine the majority is on their side. Like bulldogs though, once they bite, they can't let go. In their two-value world there is no middle-ground between Macho-Male and Effete-Female, no LGBTQ alphabet queers.

Fortunately, the rational methods of Philosophy were developed to allow us to meet-intellectually (on the sidelines Stoa) without coming to blows (in the Agora, with the masses). We lay down our weapons by emulating Socrates -- "all I know is that I know nothing" -- and Isaiah -- "come, let us reason together". There are two dictionary definitions of "argument" : 1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. 2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. When I first started posting on this forum, I had some philosophical discussions with 180, in which we exchanged opinions & reasons. And I thought we not very far apart in our views. But something about my Enformationism & BothAnd worldviews struck him as dangerously heretical (i.e anti-science*1). Since then he has not pretended to offer rational arguments (def #2), and presents only emotional outbursts (def#1) "your'e wrong, wrong wrong". No more middle ground, and no more Mr. Nice Guy.

So, for the most part, I have simply ignored his booing & hissing. When, I recently responded to an apparently innocent comment, it simply gave him an opening for invective & evisceration. (note the bold philosophical terms in the following post). Although, I remain open to philosophical dialog, I will refuse to engage in political debates. However, If you feel lucky, you are free to get down in the mud, and start slinging. 180 has made it clear that he is not an open-minded BothAnder, but a my-way-or-wrong-way take-no-prisoners Heresy Inquisitor. In time-honored tradition, you can volunteer to be my champion to defend my sullied honor, by "engaging with the nay-sayers". Know the risk though, before you admit to any eccentric opinions. Good luck, you'll need it. :joke:

COME, LET US REASON TOGETHER.
NO, SCREW THAT, JUST BURN THE BASTARD


*1. Anti-science : I prefer Sabine Hossenfelders open-minded term "ascientific" for non-empirical philosophical questions.

I see that you're utilizing your BothAnd concept to full effect! Bravo! — Agent Smith

I try to practice what I preach, but it's hard to get Either/Or thinkers to view anything from a perspective other than their own ingrained point of view. Apparently 180BooBoof looks to Trump for philosophical arguing tips. Just accuse the other guy of doing exactly what you are doing. Or at least distract the attention from your own faults. A finger pointing away, reliably distracts bystanders from looking at you. That's not a complementary BothAnd perspective, but merely the old "don't look at me . . . hey, look over there" trick. That's not Philosophy, it's Sophistry. And it's childish. :cool:

DON'T ACCUSE ME OF RACIST POLICIES,
JUST LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT RACE PERSON

The OP is my attempt to understand a phenomena I've witnessed many times. It contains the example of King David's census, but multiple similar examples could be given. The OP presents a thesis, a possible explanation, but doesn't not present a proof. — Art48

I like the metaphor of a god-mold, filled with locally-available god-stuff. Which historically, has been mostly based on personal experience with physical human people in political positions of near-absolute power. And, it seems to be a novel take on the old "god shaped hole in the heart" argument.

The OP begins with some examples of questionable behavior by "person gods". Presumably, the intent is to suggest a viable alternative : a non-person god. But that concept may not make sense to most on this forum, especially those with an unimaginative Materialistic worldview. So, they react as-if you are proposing just-another-anthro-morphic-god. Perhaps, you could get it back on track by presenting your thesis without reference to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, and without reference to individual personal experiences. Though, that may be too abstract, and too non-sciencey, for those same Realist/Materialists. Law courts are often tied-up for days with "what did you know (i.e. experience) and when did you know (experience) it?"

Maybe you could shift the focus to the art of transfer molding. That would avoid getting personality traits & behaviors confused with the notion of god models. With no physical human example to create the mold from, any resemblance to a "mere" human would be lost. And the artist would have to create his mold-model from scratch. :smile:

AN ARTISTIC IMPRESSION OF ARIES, DAVID ???

Yes, you & the Woo-Crew quote the likes of Rovelli, Stenger, Carroll, Deutsch, Hawking, et al without the slightest comprehension of what he says. I wear your Dunning-Kruger ad hominems, sir, as badges of honor. :clap: — 180 Proof

There's no honor in pretending to be intellectually superior. Even Trump can barely pull it off. Besides, isn't it hard to make a supercilious smirk-face with your tongue sticking out? Hey, trading insults, instead of ideas, is fun. But, you don't get no badges for your political playground philosophy, sir! Just kidding . . . or am I? :joke:

PS__No offense intended. The smiley has tongue-in-cheek, and no wiggling ears.

While Feynman's comment suggests any theory/idea based on Quantum Mechanics is a case of obscurum per obscuris, I find it quite fascinating that anyone would lay a foundation of ignorance for their knowledge claims. — Agent Smith

Hey! Don't blame Feynman. It was the obscure First Cause that laid the foundation for Quantum obscurum. Feynman was a genius, but not smart enough to make sense of a system that functions both deterministically and randomly.

My Enformationism thesis accepts that such nonsense was necessary to produce a self-organizing world that also has an element of freedom. A straightforward computer program would be self-organizing, but it would be very limited in novelty. That's why the Evolutionary program was a stoke of genius. It allows simple repetitive cause & effect actions to go creatively crazy sometimes. That's because linear logical predictable Cause-Effect is built on an unstable foundation of non-linear absurd unpredictable Background-Hiss. And I'm not talking about 180. :grin:


How Randomness Can Arise From Determinism :
This dichotomy between unpredictable individual behavior and precise group behavior is not unique to quantum mechanics.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-randomness-can-arise-from-determinism-20191014/

↪Agent Smith
:smirk:
Addendum to ↪180 Proof
... It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupiditie dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60
↪Gnomon
↪Enrique
↪Wayfarer
et al.
(re: TPF's Quantum-Woo Crew :sparkle:) — 180 Proof

Thanks for that sincere confession of faith in Scientism : Reductionism & Materialism. Ironically, the "woo-crew" typically quotes the informed opinions of physicists, such as Rovelli to support their philosophical ideas. Whereas, "The Boo Hiss crew" (180Proveit) typically spouts expressions of faith in generic scientific doctrine, and of intellectual superiority to freewheeling philosophers.

Speaking of "woo of the gaps", highly credentialed physicist Hossenfelder interviewed Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, about the physical cause of consciousness. His theory is that quantum scale microtubules mysteriously produce consciousness when measured. He's a Nobel Prizewinner, but Sabine found such woo-of-the-gaps "quantum spiritualism" hard to accept, because the gap between non-conscious tubes of protein and conscious minds is filled with unspecified and unwarranted assumptions. "I find that stunning, because it's telling us that your belief that the system works is stronger than the system itself. What are you doing that enables you to transcend the system?" Fortunately, he admitted that it was just a hypothesis, not a doctrine.

180's faith in the system of science also transcends any specific evidence within the system. He dresses up his quips, not with the ambiguous word "Quantum", but with vague references to intuitive, but outdated, Classical Newtonian Physics. By avoiding references to quantum weirdness, I suppose he feels that his bold accusations of woo-mongering are on safe ground. Because, with no details, they're not subject to the Holistic interpretations of the quantum pioneers. That sounds like the Trump technique, when challenged he points the finger at the other guy and calls him unflattering names. Is that legitimate TPF philosophy? :joke:

WOO-FREE AND ARGUMENT-FREE "BOO-HISS" PHILOSOPHY

This has so many practical verification as many practical denials. Empty statement, lacking wisdom. But it is with wisdom that the followers fill it with, and therefore the followers of Ching work with the substantial, but it is the voidful emptiness of this aphorism that they use. — god must be atheist

I'm not aware of any practical empirical way to verify the usefulness of emptiness, except to put stuff in it. Then it's simply a rational conclusion from experience, that empty space is a place to put things. This is the basis of the old glass "half-empty" vs "half full". That's not a true/false statement, but a matter of opinion, depending on how you see the future : pessimistic vs optimistic.

When realtors advertise a house for sale, do they promote the physical studs & bricks, or the beauty of its organization & the utility of its spaces? Because there's nothing there, and some people can't imagine filled emptiness, many sellers use rental furniture to assist their imagination, to "fill it with wisdom". Homebuyers pay good money for such insubstantial non-things as Beauty & Utility. Perhaps because their future usefulness is only apparent to those who can "see" what's not there. Due to "quantum weirdness", even pragmatic Scientists have been forced to redefine common-sense "empty space" as "potential energy".

In psychology, it's called "figure ground perception". And in architecture, the empty space between buildings is known as "negative space". That's because some short-sighted people are biased to view emptiness as nothingness, instead of potential usable space. Faithful Materialists have a practical prejudice against nothingness, because it is commonly equated with spirits & ghosts. But Neuroscientist Terrance Deacon has developed a detailed theory, that is just as reasonable as Darwin's Evolution of living organisms from non-living substance. But it fills the gap between Matter & Life, with a modern computer analogy for the power of Potential to create something new & meaningful from something that is not-yet-real. Don't judge without knowledge. Read it for yourself. :smile:

The Power of Absence :
There is a glaring gap in modern science, and Terrence Deacon aims to close it – in part by explaining how material things can have “aims”, and how “absence” can serve to fill functional gaps. He is a neuro-scientist whose expertise straddles the borders between Classical & Quantum, Physics & Metaphysics, and between Science & Philosophy. Deacon says, “we need a theory of everything that does not leave it absurd that we exist”. Ironically, his central thesis sounds absurd on the face of it : that non-existence can affect existing things. Although “absence” may be irrelevant to “inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind.” So, he hopes to open a dialogue “between our currently incompatible cultures of knowledge, the physical and the meaningful”. He laments that “scientific knowledge is viewed with distrust by many, as an enemy of human values, the handmaid of cynical secularism, and a harbinger of nihilism”. He aims to regain that trust by showing that Science is relevant to heart-felt human interests.

Although Deacon's theory challenges the philosophy of Materialism, he takes great pains to avoid the slippery slope into Spiritualism as an explanation for meta-physical phenomena. Instead, he offers a naturalistic account for Life, Mind, Soul, Sentience, Consciousness, and most other immaterial features of the world. My own thesis of Enformationism also attempts to bridge the conceptual chasm between Physics and Meta-physics. But the main difference, is that I didn't automatically reject the possibility of a supernatural agent to serve as the First Cause of everything. Instead, I proposed something like a LOGOS, who created the plenipotent Information system that enforms the world via teleological power : a plan for the development of a cosmos. Of course, the deistic inferences I'm drawing from his evidence are precisely the ones he's trying to avoid. And I view his “Absence” as a religiously neutral term for causation that used to be known as incorporeal “Spirit”, but is now known as incorporeal "Energy".
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

Universal Negation :
All roads are blocked to a philosophy which reduces everything to the word ‘no.’ To ‘no’ there is only one answer and that is ‘yes.’ Nihilism has no substance. There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

FIGURE - GROUND vs NOTHING - SOMETHING vs REAL - POTENTIAL

Are the posters on this forum just talking cartoon animals? Or, is there a good reason for speculating beyond the limits of the senses? Are we on this forum just pounding words, for no better reason than a quick snack? — Gnomon
I think we are just pounding words, and testing ideas we are cartoon animals and searchers for truth. — Tom Storm

OK. Fair enough. Though dismissive of word-pounding Philosophers. But, when philosophical searchers go looking for truth, is there any good reason to explore beyond the limits of human senses, and their mechanical extensions? That's what Art seems to be doing with his "mold theory of personal gods". I'd never heard of that particular argument, but it seems reasonable enough. Not necessarily true, but worth thinking about.

Ancient humans knew nothing about modern Science, so they depended on Intuition for answers to questions that were not obvious. The only causal actors they were familiar with, were intentional animals & humans. So, they could be forgiven for assigning personal intention to the invisible forces of Nature. We now call it "Energy", but the ancients called it "Spirit", using an analogy with invisible breath, that can leave the body at death, with no measurable physical changes.

We now know more about internal physical changes at the precipice of death, but none of them individually accounts for the undeniable difference between a living willful human and an inanimate inert physical body. So, what is that difference? Is it some physical Quanta, as Reductionists tend to assume? Or some non-physical Qualia, as Holists postulate? If the latter, then the notion of an "invisible bodiless spirit" animating & directing Nature might make sense.

In my own postulate-pounding, I propose Enformed Energy (Enformy : energy + information) as a meaningful description of how the random directionless accidents of Evolution, chosen & collated by Natural Selection, eventually produced intentional creatures who wonder about their own origins. That's how Evolutionary Programming works to design things that are difficult to define in advance. And that may also be the kind of abstract/mathematical/logical Creator (empty enforming mold) that Art is proposing. So, let's hear him out. :smile:


In terms of application, Evolutionary Programming is most commonly used in constrained environments such as scheduling and routing, power systems, and designing systems
https://towardsdatascience.com/unit-5-evolutionary-programming-cced3a00166a
As a designer myself, I am acutely aware that design is an open-ended art. Hence difficult to define, except by describing a desired end-state (teleology). Computers are much better than humans for pounding-away at seemingly pointless mathematical computations of value & probability.

We mold clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that makes the vessel useful. We fashion wood for a house, but it is the emptiness inside that makes it livable. We work with the substantial, but the emptiness is what we use.
___Tao Te Ching

↪Art48
Indeed and the speculative constructions and reinventions can go on forever. But why? — Tom Storm

Finally, at least that's a philosophical question, not a physical "how" question. So, it's appropriate for The Philosophical Forum. It's so important to humans that sages have been trying to answer it for thousands of years. But, it's even more difficult than a moon-shot, because we know exactly where that shining orb is located. So maybe, Art is trying to suggest a new way (a logical extension ladder?) to get closer to that ancient quest. Remember, "they said it couldn't be done". But then, someone said we'll do it, "not because it is easy, but because it's hard".

Perhaps we tackle the hard questions, because we like challenges. Maybe it's because you and I exist, and we have no better explanation for temporal contingent existence, than something self-existent, hence not subject to space-time attacks. If the god-question does not interest you, perhaps an empirical science forum would suit you better. Philosophy is about immaterial Ideas, not material objects. It's reasonable to be skeptical of unsupported ideas, but the only support for philosophy is logical reasoning (i.e. other ideas).

Is philosophy a pointless pastime? Or is human Reason a way of seeing without eyes, and Knowing without direct experience? Are the posters on this forum just talking cartoon animals? Or, is there a good reason for speculating beyond the limits of the senses? Are we on this forum just pounding words, for no better reason than a quick snack?

I know you know better than that. And you have seen plenty of tired Old arguments before. But Art's argument is philosophical, not empirical, rational, not religious. It's not necessarily true, but maybe, he has some good points, that are not easily defeated by tired old "show me the money" retorts. Logical relationships can only be deconstructed by better logical arguments. Admissions of exasperation don't count. Just sayin. :cool:

On a more serious note, monism can be justified if we, Daniel Dennett style, say that the other offending opposite is an illusion. So declare the mind is an illusion and we have materialism; on the other hand, if we state that matter is an illusion, we have idealism. The other option is to assert the official positions of these two antithetical ideas i.e. matter depends on mind in one case and that mind depends on matter in the other. — Agent Smith

Yes, a common rhetorical tactic is to point the finger of stupidity at the "other" deluded "mind". In my experience though, those who "state that matter is an illusion" are a tiny minority of modern philosophers. Instead, today's idealists have no illusions that matter per se is imaginary. If they were that foolish, they could be disillusioned by running the idea we call a knife across their hand. Or by walking through a solid wall, as illustrated in the video below.

Plato had no "idea" of imaginative neural networks that function like a homunculous in the brain. He merely noted that the Idea of a thing is not a physical object. It's merely an immaterial construct of concepts, an imaginary representation of a thing seen, or an emergent property, or a system of many interacting things like "The United States". Those are Holistic Ideas. Perhaps, more common today is Pragmatic Idealism, which imagines a perfect Ideal, to serve as a goal for Ethical & Functional behavior. That's what Plato was talking about.

On this forum, Reductionists, who see no "physical evidence" for an immaterial Mind, are more common. Because they trust only what they see (vision), not what they think (reason). They have no use for immaterial Systems or functional Holism. So, they imagine the so-called "Mind" as, not a homunculus, nor a Cartesian observer, but as a knowing Neural Net. Which of those imaginary IDEAS is REAL? Hint : none of them. :cool:


Pragmatic Idealism ... Every decision a person makes stems from the person's values and goals. People can have many different goals and values;
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html
Note -- what is the substance of "goals" & "values"?

THAT WALL IS NOTHING BUT AN ILLUSORY IDEA IN YOUR IDEA OF A MIND

https://youtu.be/zsHBoXfvh-8

NEURONS IMAGINED AS CARTESIAN OBSERVER


SMART MATTER ???
SHOW ME THE MEANING

The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. — Gnomon

No, just sensitive dependence on initial conditions. — jgill

Well, that too. :smile:

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Note -- Differences are the essence of meaningful Information (order).

This phenomenon, pioneered by Lorenz and others, has found widespread application as deterministic chaos.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/13/chaos-theory-the-butterfly-effect-and-the-computer-glitch-that-started-it-all/?sh=1fea912569f6
Note -- Determinism is the antithesis of True Chaos, and yet, apparent chaos can produce predictable consequences.

Does order come from chaos?
Chaos may indeed accumulate in a system over time as ordered structures break down, but at the same time order can continue to emerge from chaos within the system as long as energy is available to drive the chaotic processes which produce that order.
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2015/08/order-emerges-out-of-chaos-the-fundamental-d1/

Is there any reason for monism rather than dualism/pluralism? — Agent Smith

Descartes proposed Substance Dualism as an alternative to the monism of Materialism, which denied that Mind was immaterial (spiritual). But e pluribus unum (plurality is fundamental) versus e unum pluribus (unity is essential), is an ancient unresolved philosophical argument, dating back to the Greeks. For example, Atomism was both pluralistic and monistic, depending on how you frame the situation. If the atom is defined as having no smaller parts, it is locally monistic. But, if an indivisible atom is just one of a multitude of elementary objects, it is globally pluralistic. Apparently, the reason for making such fine distinctions is to give us something to argue about. :smile:

I prefer to follow the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on the question of human consciousness. The posit that a 'supernatural' (first cause) mind took over 13 billion years to reproduce something with a mind is rather mindless and akin to such nonsense as the kalam cosmological argument. — universeness

The Kalam argument says that "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence". Which is undeniably true of anything within the cause & effect chain of Space-Time. But, it implies that the First Cause is external & eternal, hence not subject to the restrictions of space-time or matter-energy-entropy.

Any postulated First Cause is necessarily "Supernatural", in the same sense that the Big Bang Singularity is "Preternatural" (prior to space-time). Hence, both are "ascientific" in Hossenfelder's terms. Consequently, they have no more empirical (observational) authority than the Kalam argument. Any speculations beyond the origin of space-time are philosophical conjectures, even when postulated by scientists. Is your preference for sciency-sounding BS over theological BS? It's all philosophical BS. :wink:

Astrophysicist Ethan Seigel :
Contrary to recent headlines and Penrose’s assertions, there is no evidence of “a Universe before the Big Bang.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=473bfdcc7a0f

I don't consider happenstance or random combination, accidental. Everything that can combine will combine as time passes. If it can happen, it will happen somewhere at some time. — universeness

So, you consider the existence of sentient humans just the luck-of-the-draw? It may be true that "anything that can happen will happen" given infinite time. But 14 billion years is just a fraction of eternity. Besides the House sets the odds, so who is the House in this analogy : Fate or G*D? :confused:

Happenstance : synonyms
fate, fluke, chance, hap, incident, event, luck, serendipity, certain, accident and fortuity.
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/happenstance

Fate : synonyms
destiny · chance · fortune · luck · nemesis · predestination · providence.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-thesaurus/fate

Sure, so we are aware of that. I don't see how that adds to the credence of a first cause mind. — universeness

A scientific "frame" is limited to the boundaries of space-time. But, a philosophical "frame" extends beyond those empirical limits into the realm of Theory. For example, the expansion of the universe is an empirical conclusion. But the Singularity from which it emerged is a theoretical construct, with no empirical support. A theory only "adds credence" if it is logical. Do you ever rely on Logic to support a belief? :nerd:

"No. Logic is not empirical. No mathematical theory is empirical."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-logic-Can-it-be-an-empirical-science-or-non-empirical-science-like-mathematics-If-yes-how-Is-reasoning-an-actual-mental-process-employed-by-a-thinking-being-when-reasoning

Not functional selection but natural selection which has no intent. — universeness

If Natural Selection has no future-oriented "intent", then how is organic (producing organisms) Selection different from entropic (disorderly) Randomness? A "functional" selection has a causal relationship to the effect we call "order" or "organization". Why did Darwin feel the need to postulate "Natural Selection" if not to provide a hypothetical alternative to "Supernatural Selection"? :halo:

Proof Finds That All Change Is a Mix of Order and Randomness
https://www.quantamagazine.org › math-proof-finds-all...

You pick your team, and you raise your standard in that camp. It has always been and always will be thus. I see no credence in the evidence you have provided for your first cause mind with intent posit. — universeness

I was a team of one, long before I read Sabine's book. So, maybe she joined my team, by using the same philosophical framing to go beyond empirical Science. You seem incredulous. Is that because Sabine's frame is different from your own faith-frame? Just kidding. :joke:

So, what evidence from the random chaos of quantum fluctuations within quantum fields do you suggest supports the anthropic principle? — universeness

Quantum Fields are imaginary metaphors. So there is no hard "evidence" of creative "fluctuations". However, there is evidence of order arising within apparent Chaos. The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. But the seeds of order seem to be innate (iceberg hidden in the fog), and require only statistical "coincidences" (crossing paths) to reveal themselves.
Note : In this analogy, the "order" is simply a change of form from sailing ship to sinking wreck. In the Anthropic theory, the order is the highly unlikely coincidence of randomly swirling atoms magically taking on the form of a thinking being in a vast mindless universe. I'm just looking at the "evidence" through a wider frame of reference. :yum:

The ability to mimic that which already has existence and is knowable and can be studied and analysed and reverse engineered, is no evidence that the process was started by a first cause supernatural mind. — universeness

So, if not due to "that which already has existence", what is that mathematical-point-of-origin (Singularity) evidence of? Existent Something from pre-existent nothing? :cool:

You have a lot more weeding to do but you are certainly not alone in that venture. — universeness

Thanks for lending me your sharp weeding implements. That's what philosophical forums are for : sharing of ideas & experiences & beliefs & opinions & theories. Incestuous Reasoning in a Solipsistic world only breeds monsters. :gasp:

WHAT YOU BELIEVE DEPENDS ON HOW YOU FRAME THE EVIDENCE

What about the fact that when Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing came out philosophers wasted no time in distancing themselves from Krauss, saying the nothing of physics is not the nothing of philosophy i.e. Krauss failed to answer the philosophical question why is there something rather than nothing? — Agent Smith

Yes. Krauss had to admit that "something" (space, time, matter, energy, laws) must exist (presumably eternally) prior to the ex nihilo emergence of our physical world. I differ with him only in that I think it's necessary to add Math & Mind to that list of pre-existing factors, in order to explain the emergence of logical thinking creatures from an otherwise mindless process. Potential Mind (LOGOS) is the presumptive cause of Actual minds emanating from a substrate of Matter & Energy. :nerd:

PS__Most of those pre-existing factors (space, time, energy, laws, mind, math) are immaterial, hence not subject to Entropy. And Matter itself is an effect of space-time & energy + laws. Hence, subject to reduction into its essential elements. You can guess why Krauss didn't mention Mind & Math (Logic) under the heading of Nothing.

But if a wave-particle duality is mere confusion and not real what then becomes of your BothAnd idea? It's all dressed up with nowhere to go! — Agent Smith

Not true! My BothAnd principle can "go" to both Wave and Particle, and to both sides of a coin. Just not at the same time. It's like Superman & Clark Kent are never seen in the same place at the same time. :joke:

You suggested that a mind could be responsible for creating this Universe, it's your responsibility to make crystal clear the level of personal credence you assign to such a posit. — universeness

If you have the time, I have the text. My website & blog attempt to make "crystal clear" why I have concluded that an intentional First Cause is necessary to explain how a heuristic process (evolution) could produce an effect (sentience) that can conceptualize its own heritage. Bottom line : nothing Actual in the Effect that was not Potentially in the Cause. The leaf stems from the root. :smile:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

A computer program is not a happenstance, no. Life in this Universe is happenstance, yes. — universeness

And you know this how? Could the seed of that conclusion have been in the original belief in creative accidents? What you see depends on your frame. Evolution is creative of novelty, not because of random Mutations, but due to functional Selection. A selection is a choice. And, by definition, a choice is not accidental, but intentional. A choice is a Cause. Life happened, not by stance or chance, but by Causation. Barrow & Tipler's Anthropic Cosmological Principle does the math for you. :nerd:

A cause-and-effect relationship is claimed where the following conditions are satisfied: the two events occur at the same time and in the same place; one event immediately precedes the other; the second event appears unlikely to have happened without the first event having occurred.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095555997
Note -- Intention (aiming) makes an effect more likely by narrowing the statistical probability. Aimed arrows are statistically more likely to hit a specified target, than random arrows.

Yeah, and theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth who favour the many worlds proposal would not refer to the proposal as an ascientific belief and would disagree with Sabine, with all due respect of course. — universeness

Of course. As true believers, they would be offended by the accusation of "ascientific" faith. But Sabine says "show me the evidence" for imaginary worlds or 'verses beyond the one we can test empirically. :wink:

The most likely explanation for this is that no such prime mover has ever existed. — universeness

The Anthropic book actually calculates the likelihood of directional motion without an intentional mover. It's analogous to a pool-cue-ball accidentally putting the eight-ball in a side pocket without intention or aiming. :confused:

I have a mind, so I can. That's why computer programs don't spontaneously appear and that's why the mind of a first cause does not manifest. It has no existence to enable it to. — universeness

Ironically, that's exactly why I concluded that creative ability requires can-do Mind. Your programming mind does not "manifest" to me, except in its effects : the programs themselves are the evidence of the intent. We know the "mind" of the programmer by examining the program. In my example, creative Evolution, which modern programmers are learning to emulate. :yum:

Evolutionary programming :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

The latter is based on REAL science, although it could still be wrong, — universeness

Hossenfelder labels Cosmic Inflation theories as "ascientific" because they're non-empirical. It's a hypothetical story to justify a prior opinion. Notice, in the chart below, that Inflation assumes, without evidence, some Cause prior to the Big Bang. Hence external to the "real" universe.

NEGATIVE POINTS in the Time before Time ARE NON-REAL

Trust me, based on the question posed, the fictional deep thought supercomputer gave a shit answer and needs to be reprogrammed or replaced. — universeness

Can your programs calculate the answer to universal questions? If not, maybe they need to be reprogrammed by a Universal Programmer. :joke:

Thanks for the questions & challenges. They help me to weed-out my own self-justifying opinions. :grin: