Maybe I'm still too hopeful and naive, but I'd say we could find the true religion in the same way we find any truths, and debunk false religions in the same way we debunk any errors:
False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness. — A Christian Philosophy

I too, was once "hopeful & naive". By the time I graduated from high school, I had doubts about my own fundamentalist ("back to the bible") Christian religion. Around that time, my older brother came back from California, with enthusiasm for his new-found religion. It was the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG), headed by radio & TV preacher Herbert W. Armstrong. His writings provided reasonable-sounding answers to some of my own concerns. And his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, was even more charismatic & persuasive on TV. Their "heretical" departures from the Catholic heritage were justified from the perspective that the Old Testament was the revealed Word of God, and not to be dismissed as merely a temporary Law for errant Jews.

Some of those radical unorthodoxies made sense to me, on a rational basis. For instance, I could never find any scriptural evidence for changing the clearly commanded seventh day Sabbath to the indirectly inferred first day Sunday, as the "Lord's Day" for Christians. We seemed to have inherited that Catholic tradition, based originally on papal canonical councils, and on some questionable biblical exegesis. Anyway, I observed the WWCG from a distance, and even visited their campus in California. But H.W. Armstrong made some bold prophesies about "signs of the last days". Although he was in his eighties, he emphatically asserted that he knew he would still be alive when Jesus returned in triumph. He lived well into his nineties, but eventually died, and I saw no sign of The Second Coming (forty years ago). Therefore, I took that absence of evidence as empirical demonstration of a false prophecy. I also concluded from other evidences that the WWCG was a personality cult. And it soon fell apart upon the death of the prophet.

Therefore, you could say that I discovered a negative "truth" by means of experience, instead of by rational analysis of teachings. And I "debunked" certain beliefs by Bayesian probability updates, instead of by Logical certainty. As I said before, reasoning is only as good as it's premises. And religious premises are usually un-verifiable Axioms that must be taken on Faith, because conclusive evidence is not available. Those premises may be "self-evident" to yourself, but not obvious at all to someone else. As we discover daily on this forum. Consequently, ultimate "Truth" remains an unfulfilled quest for the Holy Grail. So, I practice no formal Religion, but I do have a personal Worldview, which guides my fallible reasoning about ultimate reality. FWIW, it does have a role for a G*D-of-the-philosophers (First Cause ; Logos),

There are thousands of religious sects, and they can't all teach a single cohesive Truth. So, their internal "contradictions" tend to be dismissed as "improper" interpretation, or surrounded by spurious sophistry, or dismissed as close-enough to "reasonableness". So, I don't engage each belief system in rigorous rational analysis. Instead, I have developed my own personal non-scriptural non-religious Philosophical belief system. It's based as far as possible on empirical evidence, but also supplemented with philosophical speculation. As you said, it's not absolute Truth, but it seems "reasonable" to me. :cool:


Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

The problem is more that quantum physics has essentially zero philosophical content: as much compatible with free will as determinism, miracles "can happen" as much as they are extremely unlikely to happen, could be all a simulation and a way to simply compress the data of the simulation and so on and so on. — boethius

That's a provocative assertion for a philosophy forum. Of course, Quantum Physics has no philosophical content for those who prefer to "shut up and calculate". Likewise, the self-moving rocks in the desert have no inherent philosophical implications, for those who are content just to dispassionately observe a strange phenomenon.

But some of us are inclined to ask "how" (scientific) or "why" (philosophical) questions about mysterious events, such as invisible mathematical quantum fields suddenly manifesting detectable physical particles, only when actively measured. We can either explain one mystery by another, as in Miracles, or we can try to find a direct mechanical cause & effect connection (how).

Or, we can propose an answer that is somewhere in between Magic & Mechanics (why). For example, the relationship between Information & Energy suggests a possible relationship between Quantum Queerness and Consciousness. Why? Because the physicist wants to know "how". :nerd:

Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse? :
In conclusion, the ‘consciousness causes quantum collapse’ hypothesis – at least when combined with modern neuroscience – is a viable theory of physical and mental reality, which offers a clear research program and distinctive experimental predictions. It proposes a solution to the measurement problem by defining when and where collapse occurs. And it provides a place for consciousness in nature by giving consciousness a causal role. Developing this theory may well enable us to answer even deeper questions; questions such as why consciousness causes collapse and why consciousness exists at all.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse

Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : “what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information.” [My emphasis] He then admits that “quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . .” Consequently, his book is more about Philosophy than Science. Ironically, the exotic mathematics of Quantum Theory has become the foundation of 21st century science, even though its implications cannot be understood intuitively, or in terms of 19th century Classical Physics. Hence the so-called “weirdness” of QT has remained as queer as ever over the last century.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html


Mystery of Death Valley's 'Sailing Stones' Solved :
The rocks' apparent movement has been blamed on everything from space aliens and magnetic fields to pranksters. But no one has actually seen the rocks move, which only adds to the mystery.
https://www.livescience.com/37492-sailing-stones-death-valley-moving-rocks.html

The question remains,why is G the value it is in the first place. Either mathematics spontaneously caused itself, which I cannot accept, or there is something deeper than mathematics, meaning that the universe is not, at its core, mathematical. — RussellA

Why ask why? Oh yes, we're doing philosophy here, not calculation. Richard Feynman warned fellow physicists about getting side-tracked on "why" questions, when there were still so many "what" & "how" questions to resolve. Apparently he was quoting David Mermin : "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!'"

Anyway, I agree that there must be "something deeper than mathematics". As I mentioned before, numbers have only abstract values, hence they can't explain the emergence of reasons and personal meanings. So, I infer that the First Cause of our world must have possessed the Potential (creative power) for an organized world and for reasoning beings, which Plato labeled "LOGOS".

You can't go any "deeper" than the Primary Source of everything in our expanding & complexifying universe. It seems to be going somewhere, instead of just cycling in one place. So, that observation of direction implies some Intention behind the original causal impulse : the Mind behind the cue stick. Therefore, if a unique Singularity was the space-time point-of-origin for the Big Bang (not a self-destroying explosion, but an expansion of Potential into Actual), then it may have been like DNA, preprogrammed with enough information to construct a cosmos from scratch. Is that deep enough for you? :wink:

PS___In my personal thesis, I propose that the universe is, "at its core", Informational. And acausal abstract Mathematics is just one of many forms of Information ; causal Energy being another form. So, Tegmark is on the right track, but didn't go deep enough.

What is Information ? :
EnFormAction --- The power to enform, to create, to cause change ; the essence of informed awareness ; the act of enforming
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

LOGOS :
Logos became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c.  535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge. . . . . For Heraclitus, logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#:~:text=Plato%27s%20Theory%20of%20Forms%20was,the%20creation%20of%20the%20Universe.

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. Yeah - I agree that a lot of people believe in a religion because of emotions and not reason. That said, I also think the right religion can be found by reason. — A Christian Philosophy

Perhaps. But how can we sort-out which of the many "true" religions is the "right religion" for me? In forum discussions, I've noted that Muslims (Islamists) make some quite rational & reasonable arguments for certain beliefs, such as the existence of an abstract (non-anthro-morphic) G*D. But in the final analysis (premises), they will insist that Muhammad was the last true prophet, that the Koran is the true word of G*D, and that Islam is the only "true" religion. By implication, your religion is false.

Unfortunately, reasoning is only as good as its premises. And, religious premises are seldom empirical or verifiable. Hence, as tolerant philosophers, we argue politely for our "truths", yet when all is said & done, we agree to disagree. :smile:

Premise : 1 : a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based.
Note --- For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. Yet, for Muslims, the authenticity of the Koran is their starting point for reasoning. Belief bias is what allows some premises to "make sense" within one belief system, and to be non-sense for another.

Belief Bias :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2019/05/26/emotions-overruling-logic-how-belief-bias-alters-your-decisions/?sh=22bc3e9f7c56

10 Reasons Why Islam is the True Religion :
So to prove that veracity of Islam rather than showing people subjective miracles, instead I am presenting 10 proofs/evidence found in Islam for why Islam is the true religion.
https://themuslimscomic.com/2020/12/13/10-reasons-why-islam-is-the-true-religion/

Which, if any, of the world's 10,000 religions is the true one? :
https://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm

"A great many people think they are thinking [reasoning] when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." ___William James

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science? — A Christian Philosophy

As a former Christian, I must say that your post is quite logical, and well-presented. And I agree that "The empirical sciences have not replaced the rational sciences". I also accept that " there must be at least one thing that is eternal, unchangeable". Moreover, I concur that "Scientism, the belief that any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless”, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences". Hence, it must be accepted on faith in human senses, and their artificial extensions. Yet, Logic (Reason) is a sort of sixth sense, that deals with subjective ideas, not objective things.

I can even agree that "Metaphysics - the science of reality" --- but with the proviso, that it's a "science" in the general sense of "a way of knowing". But, since the 17th century, Empiricism has arrogated the term "science" to its sense-experience experiments. Therefore, rational Metaphysics has been relegated to feckless Philosophy, with its debatable logical inferences. Ironically, Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who used rational-thought-experiments to determine the unseen forces and mathematical structures of reality -- only later confirmed by empirical methods.

However, while most religions have rational philosophical/theological traditions, their popularity is not based on logic, but due to emotional appeals, prejudices & preferences. Which is why they tend to eventually break-down into passionately defended sects, with only a veneer of dispassionate logic. Even a calm rational philosophy like Buddhism, has it's zealous religious sects. Likewise, Scientism is a sect of Science, that is directly opposed to all hypothetical belief systems. Hopefully though, we can all get-along under the broad umbrella of Philosophy, with its dispassionate love of both empirical and theoretical truths. :cool:


Theoretical : considered, contemplative, speculative ; as contrasted to practical, pragmatic, empiricial

IE, what does the mathematical symbol G mean to us ? It means that we can predict what will happen, it does not mean that we know why it will happen. — RussellA

Perhaps those mathematical ratios & regularities tell us only that whatever happens is natural & logical -- or G*D's Will, if you will. From that assumption, we can make short-term predictions. But if we want to know where this trend will ultimately end, we'll need some prophetic powers. Otherwise, the "why" may be simply, as believers in holy scripture say : "it is written".

Of course, as philosophers, we are not content with such fatalistic shoulder shrugs. So, we are free to speculate about the intentions behind mathematical & logical destiny. Why "mathematics is the language of the universe"? Or why mathematics is "unreasonably effective". My observation is that the universe is not random & arbitrary, but is obviously governed by intention & logic. But "why?" can only be inferred from the history & direction of evolution. My feeble guess is that this expanding & complexifying universe is an experiment in freewill, limited only by natural laws. To paraphrase famous philosopher Dirty Harry, "Do you feel free, punk?" :smile:

The collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics is sometimes loosely described as caused by “observation,” which implies consciousness can physically affect the universe by causing the collapse. However, “measurement” is more accurate that “observation” because measurement apparatus itself rather than consciousness causes wave function collapse. — Art48

I agree that "measurement" is more appropriate as a causal force, than mere "observation". The latter term can be construed as Passive, while the former is Active. But the causal "apparatus" here is not necessarily the dumb machines focused on the event. For example, a video camera aimed at a physical incident does not cause anything to happen (e.g. video of Rodney King being beaten by police). Yet human minds, not just docilely observing, but actively extracting meaning from the video, can eventually cause a rioting mob scene.

In a similar manner, a scientist setting-up a quantum experiment is guided by the conscious intention of extracting information from the observed "collapse"*1 of wave-like behavior into particular activity. The key word here is "information", traditionally known as "meaning in a mind". 21st century physics is now equating Information with Energy. So, it's not surprising that extracting bits of information from a physical process could have measurable physical consequences. In the 20th century that suggestion sounded like magical mind over matter. Now, it's no more magical than a physical particle passing through a solid barrier (as in Flash Memory). Remarkable yes, but magical no. A number on a dial has no meaning until interpreted by a mind in the observer. :smile:

*1. More like an instantaneous Phase Transition (e.g. water to ice)

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

ENERGY AND INFORMATION :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24923125

Mental Measurement -- Physical Effect :
The author notes that “everything strange about quantum mechanics comes down to measurement”. But, what’s so odd about taking the measure of things? In this case it’s the active intrusive role of the mind of the measurer. The Latin root is “mensura”, from the word for “mind”. Which may be why Protagoras claimed that “man is the measure of all things”. So the “measurement problem” of quantum physics is concerned with what causes the superposed (all over the place) continuous wavefunction to “collapse” into a single discrete particle in one location. How does an inquiring mind cause an invisible potential object to suddenly appear, as-if from nowhere?
One clue may be found in the notion that a scientific measurement can be construed as extracting essential Information (like pulling a Linchpin⁹) from the oceanic waveform. Thus disentangling the whole system into its components, one of which is a quantum of energy that we perceive as a specific particle of matter. That’s a metaphorical¹⁰ explanation for an otherwise inexplicable physical event, barring magic of course. . . . . Bohr explained that the difference-that-made-a-difference¹² in information received by an experiment is not just looking, but in “the way we look”. And the “way” (the question) is determined by what we want to know.
Note --- quotes from Phillip Ball's, Quantum Weirdness
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page45.html

The issue I have is that it has a human component. The thinker. Then observer. And therefore I’m not sure if logic exists without an aware/ sentient observer in the environment or of logical processes occur regardless of us and that “order” is relevant even without people in the picture. — Benj96

Modern Science has concluded that every physical thing in the universe is essentially a form of mathematics : geometric relationships & algebraic ratios & formal proportions. Quantum theory has revealed that matter is math --- fields of relationships between dimensionless points. Yet, all those res extensa (spatial things) have numerical values, but no meanings. It is "sentient observers" who give personal (relevant) meaning to otherwise impersonal (abstract) relationships. That's why the "human component" relates all things in the world to Self : the focal point of perspective.

Descartes defined the human mind as res cogitans (thinking thing). Because invisible intangible Thoughts have no physical extension in space. So, René thought of thoughts as more like math : abstract definitions of concrete things & external events. But, it's the concrete thinker who evaluates abstractions in terms of relationship-to-Self. Those personal ME meanings put flesh on the bare bones of geometry.

Metaphorically, what we call "Logic" is simply mathematics with Words (Gk. logoi). And words are merely encapsulated & portable commonly-relevant meanings. Each person's experience of the world is different, but all sentient beings have mathematical bodies, engendered from mathematical topological DNA. So, all mind-making brains are akin, and similar in their basic physical structure. The brains of orcas, octopi & orioles may look different superficially. But in their fundamental physical structure they are similar. They all process information in logical patterns, which are essentially mathematical.

Therefore, the universe, from top to bottom --- from constellations to consciousness --- is essentially a network of logical mathematical interrelationships. So, the eventual emergence of sentient minds, with logical & mathematical talents, is not so surprising. Formal Logic may be an artificial construct in the natural world. But the roots of human Logic are entangled & embedded in the soil of Natural Math. :nerd:


Physical spatial objects are fundamentally mathematical fields :
A field itself, either in classical physics or in its quantization, is simply a function on spacetime, assigning to each spacetime point the "value" of that field at that point.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/337423/what-are-quantum-fields-mathematically

ONE OF THESE IS A BRAIN, THE OTHER IS THE UNIVERSE

While science suggests that we ought to be humble about the extent of our current knowledge,the mechanistic worldview, where it has mostly been faithful to scientific methods and principles, now has departed from it. — Tzeentch

Perhaps, the "mechanistic worldview" you are referring to is the philosophical faith labeled "Scientism"*1. It seems to consider mechanistic Classical Physics as a final revelation of the absolute Truth about Reality. That worldview envisions a Newtonian clockwork universe, which runs reliably until human egos & passions (and religions) interfere to knock the smoothly-running system off course. However, that simplistic model of reality was called into question by two parallel developments in the early 20th century : Quantum Physics and Information Theory.

Quantum Physics undermined the ancient Atomic dream of a firm foundation to reality by revealing that particles of matter, hopefully labeled "Atoms", were actually composites of even smaller bits of stuff. Scientific slicing & dicing of matter has continued to the point where now the foundation of the material world is considered to be merely matter-less mathematical fields of abstract potential*2. At the same time Information Theory was revealing the ubiquitous role of Information (Ideas) in the real world. That led physicist John A. Wheeler to conclude that we live in a "participatory universe", where the minds of men can interact with the physical world*3. He wasn't talking about Magic though, but about Meta-Physics*4 (ideas & intentions).

Wheeler was re-interpreting Classical Physics in terms of Information Theory. And that novel concept is also at the root of my personal worldview : Enformationism. Such analog holistic views (e.g. Systems Theory) are already beginning to fill some of the gaps in digital reductive science. This development does imply an "end of the Mechanistic Worldview", in the sense of outdated physical models. The information-based approach doesn't do away with the reliability of physical mechanisms though, it merely learns to control them more accurately, with meta-physical understanding, to allow us to work with the Fuzzy Logic, and spontaneity, of the quantum foundation of reality. :nerd:


*1.What is the Difference Between Science and Scientism :
Conclusion. The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/

*2. Quantum Non-Mechanics :
"One of the least mechanical aspects of QT is the “wave/particle duality”. What Schrodinger’s wavefunction equation refers to is neither a wave in a medium, nor a particle standing alone, but BothAnd. “In fact it’s not a wave that corresponds to any concrete physical property. It is just a mathematical abstraction . . .” Surprisingly, the equation that is the primary tool of QT includes Imaginary Numbers. And its solution is not a “description of an entity”, but a “prescription” for a future measurement. It doesn’t refer to a physical thing, but information about a possible thing. Which is why Ball says that QT is "a theory about Information." quotes from___Philip Ball, Quantum Weirdness
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

*3. Participatory Universe :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

*4. Meta-Physics :
This is not the scholastic topic of gods & ghosts, but the Aristotelian observation that human intentions can make a difference in the physical world. For example, the Panama Canal was nothing but a dream in imaginative minds (1513), until their designs were implemented in money & machinery to literally move mountains (1914). What Nature (physics) had left undone after millions of years, Culture (metaphysics) accomplished in a few generations.

Totalitarian states have been characterized by such beliefs in singular truths; a belief that complex human systems and problems can be solved like scientific or mathematical equations. — Tzeentch

One "singular truth" of the Mechanistic worldview may be the assumption that humans in a "state of nature" are completely selfish, and always in a "war of every man against every man", as Thomas Hobbes put. So his solution, like Plato's, was to appoint a "philosopher king", presumably from among the aristocracy, to rule over the unruly masses. But history shows that "philosopher kings" are in short supply. Which is why Democracy eventually seemed to be the least-bad option for controlling the irrational urges of human animals. And that common-people-rule premise may be based on the "wisdom of crowds" postulate, which mathematically averages-out extremes in favor of moderate positions. Yet again, reality reveals that not all crowds are wise : e.g. stock market stampedes & crashes.

What then are we to do? Today, many Western societies seem to be leaning toward the sovereign king solution. Technically, Hitler was not elected to his position, but he was popular in some segments of society, frustrated with the debacles of Democracy. And his simplistic mechanical logic seemed to promise a more orderly state. Unfortunately, that group order was purchased at the cost of diminished individual rights. Ironically, his avowed goal to Make Germany Great Again had popular appeal to both aristocrats & plebeians. So, it seems that societies tend to vacillate between the poles of loosely bound Liberty and rigid mechanical Order. And the statistical political math usually produces a muddled middle state that is not acceptable to either pole of the political spectrum.

Organized state religions have always been integral to the political purposes of ruling factions. For example, the Pagan Romans had an official chief priest, called a "Pontifex". And that political role was transferred to the Christian Church after it became the official state religion. However, over the years, the top-down rule of the secular & sacred Empire varied from Liberal (weak) to Totalitarian (strong), depending on internal & external circumstances. When economically & militarily stable, it relaxed the rules. But when threatened from within & without, it tightened the reins of the reign. Consequently, it seems that a simple singular solution to social order has not been found by the heuristics of history. :smile:

Disclaimer: this thread is inspired by recent interviews by Prof. Dr. Mattias Desmet — Tzeentch

A quick Google search indicates that Dr. Desmet is primarily concerned with The Psychology of Totalitarianism. And I infer that he views the current trend toward Fascist politics as a return to the ruthless top-down control of the Catholic Church, that eventually led to the Protestant rebellions and to the Scientific emancipation from Inquisition-enforced dogma. One ironic result of the rise of sectarian & secular worldviews was the emergence of NAZIism in Germany a few centuries after the Enlightenment era. The Industrial Revolution, built upon scientific knowledge, but allied with top-down Capitalism, fostered the rise of robber barons, and allowed Hitler to produce the most powerful war machine the world had ever known. His radical worldview was a sort of secular revival of the "glory that was Rome", including the imperial Roman Church. Hitler's implementation of that dream of world dominion was also based on a belief in essential superiority & purity of the Chosen People. A pseudo-religious political worldview, based on strict obedience to authority.

Although that kind of Totalitarianism was tamped-down for a while, it is currently resurgent in the secularized & scientized Western democracies. Donald Trump, among others, has revived the spirit of Totalitarianism, by synthesizing politics with a religious inclination to worship a higher power, as embodied in an all-powerful Father Figure : the Fuhrer, the King, the Pope. Apparently, some people are not comfortable with free-thinking; preferring to be told what to do, and to believe. Such top-down control systems -- in both Fascist & Communist forms -- tend to emphasize the collective "Folk" over individual persons, and conservative traditions over progressive innovations. Yet it utilizes the fruits of Science -- technology; weapons, etc -- while ignoring the free-thinking philosophy underlying its Mechanistic Power over Nature.

Perhaps it was the observation that Totalitarian Politics is based on a Mechanistic Paradigm of centralized power, that roused Dr. Desmet to call for the End of the Mechanistic Worldview. I'm not sure what alternative egalitarian political system he has in mind, but I doubt it requires submission of Science & Philosophy to Politics & Economics & popular Media. Tzeentch, do you know what he envisions as a Non-Mechanical Worldview to guide a multi-cultural & querulous planet, that is about to conquer new worlds beyond Terra Firma? :smile:

First, I like the 'handle'. As a desultory maker of sundials, I'm aware of its function and etymology. — Torus34

Why desultory? Sounds like a fun hobby. As an architect, I once designed a Sundial Tower, just for funsies. It wasn't really a sundial, but merely "inspired by". For practical purposes though (uninspired clients), I eventually did a more conventional campus landmark tower. That was long before I adopted "gnomon" as my online handle. :smile:

Philosophically, we can seek for philosophers who were skilled in multivariate modes of thought. They may be few on the ground. — Torus34

You are not alone, in looking for an alternative to negative-combative-simplistic-two-value-Either/Or thinking. In my personal philosophy, I call that positive multi-value worldview The BothAnd Principle. FWIW, here's a summary. :smile:

The BothAnd Philosophy :
* Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In adition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
* The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
* The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism or Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Divine Revelation of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
* The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The BothAnd Principle in action :
* Individuals may have strong beliefs & principles. But interpersonal endeavors require more flexibility. So, this blog is an argument for Relativism, Negotiation, Compromise, & Cooperation.
* The usual alternative to these wavering wimpy ways is the unyielding dominant stand-point of Absolutism, Conflict, and Competition. Royal and Imperial political & religious systems tend to adopt an autocratic stance of “my way or the highway”. Whereas, In more democratic and egalitarian systems, the marketplace of ideas will determine truths and values.
* Nationalism is a modern pseudo-democratic off-shoot of Royalism, with its divine right to rule a nation of pawns. Democracy and Socialism are imperfect attempts to accommodate the needs & wishes of all citizens from top to bottom.
* The Blog assumes that we will always have people on both sides of every issue. Yet, we can still have our private beliefs, even as we make public concessions to necessity.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/-BothAndPhilosophy

Well, I'm not sure how to judge your post. It rings true but, absit iniuria, that can be for so many reasons other than it being true if you catch my drift. Verisimilitude is rather complex it seems! I digress though. — Agent Smith

That's OK. No offense taken. I was just riffing on one implication of your post : that humanity might be devolving due to unfitness : not having the "right stuff" for survival. Au contraire mon fre're, the Enformationism worldview implies that humanity is now a major driver of evolution -- for better or for worse. Humans have added Cultural Selection to Nature's weeding-out mechanisms. And one aspect of Cultural Selection is the Moral Dimension. It's an unnatural (artificial) way of guiding the selfish masses toward the common good. Animals don't have a formal Moral Code, because they are driven mainly by emotional instinct, instead of rational planning.

Some cynical philosophers see only the sensationalized media view of humanity's immoralities. But, a few scientists have dug up evidence to tell a mundane story of man's humanity toward man & nature. Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature ; Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc ; and Rutger Bregman's HumanKind, are just a few examples of a more hopeful outlook for the future history of humanity. There are plenty of negative "truths", if that's your thing. But I prefer to focus on the much more common positive "truths" that can be interpreted as upward moral evolution. Our technological progress is undeniable, but moral progress is not so obvious. That's why Steven Pinker wrote Enlightenment Now, to present the case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. These books give some "reasons" for "it being true". :grin:


Enlightenment Now, Again :
Pinker is optimistic about human flourishing, fostering, enhancing, and progressing, as we overcome inherent and environmental limitations with grit & reason.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page41.html

I see. So is that an absolute truth ? Or just a guess ? Just 'appearance' or 'phenomenon' ? Does the person a in private dream somehow figure it out ? And assume that everyone else must also be in a private dream ? But isn't this just more of that private dream ? Mere illusion ?
The trick is its vainglorious humility, its wilting arrogance. — Pie

Is that your humble way of implying that, contra Kant, you do have personal access to "absolute truth"? What "trick" are you referring to? Do you think that Empirical Science reveals "absolute truth" that is hidden from "arrogant" philosophers? :smile:

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism - Do we need the Ding an Sich? :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/84710/kant-vs-scientific-rationalism-do-we-need-the-ding-an-sich

Perhaps I speak too soon - the circumstances are such that some of the traits we possess can't be identified as good/bad for survival; are some qualities we possess being maintained/honed/discarded? Only time will tell I guess. In addition we seem to have created a quasi-Matrix-like artificial world for ourselves with its own set of rules and only a handful will survive for more than a few hours out in the wild. — Agent Smith

Don't give up on us yet. I hope our good qualities are not being "discarded". But sometimes one talent comes to the forefront, and another recedes. For example Darwinian Evolution emphasized the role of competition in the "struggle for survival" : mano y mano ; one-on-one. But other naturalists, such as E.O.Wilson, saw that cooperation within cohesive systems (Group Selection) was a major factor of evolution. The "honing" process works in more ways than one, to "maintain" a balanced system.

That maintenance includes Cultural selection & progression. In the 20th century, most Western societies rejected cooperative Socialism, and focused on competitive Capitalism as the main driver of social evolution (measured in terms of money). But, that "greed is good" policy resulted in some dire social consequences, as economic competition tended to let the cream rise to the top (the super-rich 1 or 2%), while the watery whey sank to the bottom (Zion in the Matrix). In reality though, what we now have is a hybrid (off-setting) system of Socialism & Capitalism.

However, Nature tends to automatically react to re-balance an out-of-whack system; sometimes via violent natural disasters. And Culture ("artificial world") also seems to offset extremes in order to harmonize the general human welfare. However, apologies to Marx, Social systems are unnatural, and seldom automatic. So the polarity may have to get very disproportionate before civil wars break-out. Hence the history of human culture seems to follow the up & down path made famous by Hegel. Yet, somehow the general trend seems to keep us, as a world-wide social system, on a fairly stable path. That may be because natural & cultural Evolution have an inherent stabilizing force to keep it on track. Being a pragmatic optimist, I call that implicit equilibrator "EnFormAction". :smile:

PS__One example of balancing Aristocracy (the few) and Proletariat (the many) is in the Parliamentary proportioning of Lords (few) and Commons (many). It acknowledges the social disparity, but tries to provide a political counterbalance. This is a cultural example of the natural balance between Predators (few) and Prey (many). It's an eccentric symmetry, and a dynamic balance, but it seems to work . . . . in the long run.

Social Re-Balance :
Picture a country plagued with financial struggle, unaffordable food, looting and rioting due to heavy disdain for the current regime, the wealthy exempt from paying taxes, and an expanding urban poor.
Thinking of the United States during the good year of our Lord 2020?
Think again. We’re talking late 18th century France.
https://www.polljuice.com/vive-la-revolution-comparing-u-s-inequality-with-1789-france/

THE EVOLUTIONARY DIALECTIC


PYRAMID PROPORTIONS

Given the choice truth or survival, we've been programmed to opt for the latter. A delusion/illusion can make the difference between life and death and hence the abundance of cognitive biases which, though leads us away from the truth, keeps us safe and sound. — Agent Smith

An interesting perspective! It reminded me that lower animals have no illusions. For example, an ant is not concerned with "Truth", and doesn't worry about "Death", but only with what works right here, right now. Homo sapiens is a different animal though. Our rational ability to project here & now into the near future, causes us to worry about things that are not things, and about events that may never happen. We sometimes treat those imaginary possible futures as-if they are the wolf at the door. That's the root of most anxiety disorders. But the stoics among us understand, that if an imaginary wolf is at the door, all we need to do is not open the door.

Discerning True-from-False is sometimes taken to extremes by philosophers. That's why we need to be reminded by thinkers like Kant and Hoffman, that we have no way of knowing Absolute Truth. So, we have to do the best we can with our little cache of personally proven facts, and whatever useful truths we can glean from the experiences of others. We weave all those particular truths together with links of Logic, to fill-in the gaps in our direct & indirect knowledge. The patchwork result is Pragmatic Wisdom, not seamless Divine Revelation.

The BothAnd Principle is based on viewing "True-False" as a continuum, not as absolute extreme positions with nothing in between. So, instead of going to one-end-or-the-other of those simple-minded oppositions, philosophers are advised to shoot for the "sweet spot" at the Golden Mean. Apparently, species that succeed at maintaining an "even keel" (stability ; consistency) survive long enough to reproduce, and to propagate their informed genes (molded by experience) into future generations. That's not out-dated Lamarckism, but merely the observed fact that genes are not merely inert carriers of information, but are modified by the experience of their host (neo-Lamarkism). Moreover, humans have invented an artificial form of embodied experience : writing & recording (techno-Lamarkism).

Life is not simply a stark choice between door A (true?) & door B (false?), but a more interesting game with multiple options, some more true than others. Perhaps, what 180 Proof labeled "partial truths". The first of all Principles in the game-of-Life is "choose life". However, Wisdom is the talent to know how to choose the least-bad option, from a spectrum ranging between Good & Evil. Evolution seems to reward such Pragmatic Truth, instead of the vain treasure-hunt for the Holy Grail of Absolute Truth. Nevertheless, idealistic humans tend to err on the side of Truer Truth (e.g. philosophy ; science ; technology), thus advancing cultural evolution from Cave Man to Rocket Man -- from bare survival to thrival. :smile:


A cognitive bias is a strong, preconceived notion of someone or something, based on information we have, perceive to have, or lack.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias

I am terrible at collectivism, methodologically and in practice. Whether by nature or nurture I lack the necessary neural connections required to see the world as the activity of groups, nations, races, classes, or communities as Stalin did, so giving any priority to these over flesh-and-blood human beings is an impossible task for me. — NOS4A2

Apparently, Stalin saw only the forest, and not the trees. Which is why he could view individuals as expendable for the higher purposes of the collective. I suspect that Kings, Dictators, and Potentates-in-general share that view from on high. So, they have different "priorities" from those of us in the "huddled masses".

But, philosophers are supposed to be able to see the whole picture, including both general and particular, both classes and instances. So, it's strange that many utopian philosophers, such as Plato, believed that the masses should be governed by philosopher-kings. In practice, such unlimited power corrupts, so it's hard to avoid becoming absolute autocrats. Fortunately, for us in the "democratic" world, some of our political thinkers saw the need to limit the powers of forest-over-seers, with input from the limited perspectives of the single-tree-seers. :smile:

If evolution is to succeed with humans, it has to balance reality with illusion, hit the sweet spot so to speak just so that we stay alive long enough to transfer our genes to the next generation. Wicked! — Agent Smith

Yes. Evolution weeds out un-fitness, but useful (pragmatic) "illusions" (models of reality) are fit-enough to pass the survival test. Donald Hoffman doesn't deny that there is a real world out there. He just argues that our mental models of reality are based on limited information & experience. He uses the analogy of computer screen icons as abstract & simplified symbols of the underlying complexities hidden inside the processor.

Hence, he agrees with Kant, that we don't have direct knowledge of (real) things, just our indirect (ideal) mental representations of them. And he concludes that our imperfect replicas of reality are "good enough" to guide us through the exigencies of evolutionary extraction (culling of the herd). Good enough is near the balance point ("sweet spot") between too much and too little. Even if it doesn't hit a home-run every time at bat, it will be sufficient to result in a high batting average. :smile:

PS__Even as the technological extensions of our senses add more detail to our world model, we discover that, like fractals, the subtleties go on toward infinity.


The Case Against Reality :
As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Note -- Hoffman insists that our survival was not due to a "true" picture of reality, but to a model (that I call "Ideality") that is true-enough for minimal fitness. For example, our ancestors survived for millennia without knowing much about Physics, or Quantum Physics, or the vastness of the universe. So, they "got by" with their superficial models of the entangled complexities of the underlying & overlying world that is hidden from our eyes -- but not from our sense-extending technology. :nerd:

Clearly, Gnomon, you don't drink bleach – no doubt because the "representation" of its toxicity corresponds sufficiently with the bleach's "ding-an-such" for you to heed the poison warning label. Anti-realism (i.e.immaterialism) is demonstrably bad for your health — 180 Proof

I also don't imbibe 180 proof Materialism. It's bad for your mental health; even for those who don't believe in immaterial Minds. :joke:

Anti-Idealism :
Type-A materialists hold that phenomenal facts (insofar as there are such facts) are necessitated a priori by physical facts. Such a materialist denies that physically identical zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds are coherently conceivable, denies that Mary (of the black-and-white room) gains any factual knowledge on seeing red for the first time, and typically embraces a functional (or eliminative) analysis of consciousness.

Type-B materialists accept that phenomenal facts are not necessitated a priori by physical facts, but hold that they are necessitated a posteriori by physical facts. Such a materialist accepts that zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds (often both) are coherently conceivable but denies that such worlds are metaphysically possible, holds that the factual knowledge that Mary gains is knowledge of an old fact in a new way, and typically embraces an a posteriori identification of consciousness with a physical or functional property. ___David Chalmers
http://consc.net/papers/modality.html

PS__Maybe "G-mon" is a type A Materialist. Phenomena is a function of Noumena. In that case, Phenomena are recognized as models of Noumena because the a priori template of Aristotelian Categories (Quanta/Qualia) fits the incoming information. Partial fit = questionable; No fit = false. :cool:

So "human minds" are human minds-dependent "facts"? — 180 Proof

Say what?
Alls I'm sayin is that our understanding of what's real or unreal, true or false is subjective phemomena, not objective noumena. That's why Kant concluded that we KANT know the ding an sich (true ultimate perfect reality, which I call "Ideality"). All we know is our own concepts about perceived reality. So our "facts" are "human-mind-dependent". G*D only knows what's what out there in the Real world.

Unfortunately, most of us assume that our mental models are perfect representations of Reality. Although empirical scientists do generalize, they are aware that their models are never perfect, and fall short of absolute Facts. Hence, the necessity for methodological skepticism.

That's also why Aristotle made a distinction between Universal Ideal Generic Forms (morph), and particular physical Instances (hyle) of those Ideal Abstractions. Science attempts to generalize universal Facts from a few instances. In practice though, our common language too often allows us to confuse physical real Instances (Things ; Facts) with metaphysical ideal Forms (Universals ; Truths) ; the Ding with the Ding An Sich. :worry:

Ding an sich :
noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man, however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because practical reason—i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent—makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon#ref182175

Universals :
The Problem of Universals asks three questions. Do universals exist? If they exist, where do they exist? Also, if they exist, how do we obtain knowledge of them? In Aristotle's view, universals are incorporeal and universal, but only exist only where they are instantiated; they exist only in things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_theory_of_universals

Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certain knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt

Platonic Form :
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.
___Wiki
Note -- Those perfect Ideals exist only in the mind of G*D (or Spinoza's Nature), not in the minds of mortal men. If there is no eternal state of Being, there is only imperfect ever-evolving reality -- no absolute Truth. G*D's ideals are the ultimate objectivity that fallible humans futilely strive for in Science & Philosophy. Hence, if there was no G*D, we would have to invent one to serve as the Ideal Objective Observer.

"Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance 'God', or 'Nature'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Spinoza

MIND-DEPENDENT FACT

↪javi2541997
I believe this :point: What makes an observation true or false will be helpful!
Synthetic a priori? — Agent Smith

True & False are opinions, not facts. They don't exist apart from human minds. That's why Kant labeled them "synthetic" (artificial instead of natural). But, all animals have an interest in determining which appearances are Real (true & natural) from which are Unreal (artifacts of mind).

For instance, the appearance of tall grass may, or may not, indicate edibles for ruminants. There could be a tiger lining-up its stripes with grassy shadows. But fawns don't need to know that "fact" from personal experience. So, most prey animals are jumpy, because they were programmed -- a priori by evolutionary education -- to err on the safe side, and be prepared to run, if the grass moves when the wind is not blowing.

Homo Sapiens have inherited that habit of synthesizing physical percepts into meta-physical concepts, to mentally compare true grass with fake grass (a thought experiment). But humans have expanded that analytical talent to include complex meta-physical concepts in their appearance-vs-actual scrutiny. But out there in harsh Reality there is only "is" or "ain't". True is only "true" in Ideality.

So, philosophers invented new words to differentiate non-physical noumena (ideas, beliefs, opinions) from physical phenomena (facts, percepts, sensations). Those abstract logical categories all distill-down to True vs False. But, it's seldom that black & white. Anyway, since noumena are not empirical (known by physical evidence) they exist only in the abstract realm of Logic & Reason. Which Kant assumed was inherent in the human mind, not learned from experience. Yet, "a priori" could be interpreted as "from creation" or "from evolution". So, which belief is true, and which false? :cool:

Kant and Evolution :
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/problem-of-animal-generation-in-early-modern-philosophy/kant-and-evolution/DF6CE471233694FEC1A8B45AABBA8EB9

Bell said in a BBC interview in 1985 that the puzzle of nonlocality vanishes if you assume that “the world is superdeterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined.” — John Horgan, SciAm_Opinion

I just read, in Stephen Nadler's A Book Forged in Hell, about Spinoza's concept of divine determinism, as evidenced by reliable (consistent ; unvarying) natural laws. "Spinoza's cosmos is, in other words, a strictly deterministic, even necessitarian one. Everything, without exception, is causally determined to be such as it is . . . " To me, that sounds like "superdeterminism", or perhaps super-natural-determinism. But since Spinoza's day, empirical Science has found that, ironically, on the most fundamental scale, nature seems to be random & acausal*1. Fortunately, on the macro level of reality, the aimless vectors of quantum chaos cancel-out to present the superficial appearance of an unbroken chain of cause & effect*2. Which allows us to predict future events, at least statistically & locally.

So, the universe appears to unfold in an orderly manner, but with some room for creative disorder. If so, the "behind-the scenes clock" may not be absolutely deterministic, but occasionally skips a beat, -- allowing for the obvious creativity of Evolution. If Change was rigidly regular, nothing new (random mutations) would ever emerge from the chaotic swirling of atoms. In fact, the result of haphazard mutation & systematic selection is the syncopated rhythm of reality. This emergent order from random events permits us to depend on stable locality at the human eye-level, even though the underlying quantum field is non-local.

Hence, the symphony of nature has many parts. In the quantum section, causality is randomized, allowing for jazz-like free-style within the limits of Probability. Meanwhile, the macro instruments follow the causal conductor to play a harmonious melody, that appeals to our sense of order. Translated into philosophical jargon, such freedom within determinism is "compatible". Such flexibility is the only way to have both determined Destiny, and freedom of choice, resulting in Order within Chaos*3. As an example, imagine mountain climbers planning to ascend to the top of Mt. Everest, The ultimate goal is predetermined as the highest point. But there are many alternative paths to the top, hence options to choose from. The end of the world may be determined, but there are many ways to get there. :smile:


*1. Acausal :
Albert Einstein, also a founder of quantum physics, strenuously objected to the notion of acausality in the theory. He famously argued that “God does not play dice.” Einstein felt that if something in the universe appears to act randomly, it’s only because our understanding of it is not deep enough. He felt that there is always a cause.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/
Note -- Einstein's "God" is the First & Final Cause, but in-between there is freedom of choice for sentient & rational agents

*2. Quantum Mischief Rewrites the Laws of Cause and Effect :
Spurred on by quantum experiments that scramble the ordering of causes and their effects, some physicists are figuring out how to abandon causality altogether.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-mischief-rewrites-the-laws-of-cause-and-effect-20210311/

*3. The Order in Chaos Theory :
Freud believed that human experiences emerge from past experiences based on linear cause and effect. The Chaos Theory negates this belief as it dictates that nature is created out of a sum of many tiny pulsating objects that we now know as patterns. . . . This is justified by the Uncertainty Principle, which rejects accuracy in all its form. This is the reason why systems are called complex because they are unsolvable by either the human mind or any super computer.
https://medium.com/@universalintelligencespace/the-order-in-chaos-theory-192e2d67154a

Freedom within Determinism :
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwTerminology.html

ONE OF MANY PATHS TO THE DESTINATION

Nevertheless, I think Aristotle's principles of logic are still important in some ways. — javi2541997

Yes. If we couldn't agree on some universally applicable First Principles (starting point for reasoning), Philosophy & Science would be a political contest of whose personal opinions should rule. Most of Aristotle's principles have held-up to skeptical scrutiny over the years. But, logical reasoning from abstract principles can still be questionable. For example, even if you accept a particular axiom, as the first of a series of logical causes & effects, you could still go wrong.

That's because of the skeptical distinction between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact". David Hume noted that there is no "logical necessity" between a cause and its effect. He said that our intuition of logical cause & effect is basically a "habit of thought". Hence, one experimental outcome doesn't prove anything. So, scientists can't accept a single result as typical, until it has been repeatedly replicated. Nevertheless, reasoning from First Principles is a stubborn, and useful, habit.

Kant said he was "awakened from his dogmatic slumber" by Hume's skepticism. So, he tried to find a way to justify our intuitive "habit of thought" by means other than endless inconclusive experiments & observations. Yet, he was forced to conclude that we can't know anything about the world with absolute certainty. We can only know our own minds. Even our sensory Perceptions are filtered through our metaphysical Conceptions. Hence, it is only "knowledge of causation itself that is a priori (i.e. knowable prior to experience)"*1. We seem to be born with a mental template of metaphysical Logic and physical Cause & Effect, which we refine over time by adding confirming experiences.

Yet we must always be on the lookout for the exception that proves the rule : miracles are rare & usually based on trust in someone else's experience. So, who do you trust : Aristotle or Augustine? :joke:



*1. Reference : Philosophy Now Magazine, June/July 2022

A) Which are the “first principles” Aristotle is referring to?
B) If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997

I think you have put your finger on a sore-point of Philosophy & Science : the necessity to take some "facts" for granted without empirical proof. The only evidence to support such unproven premises (axioms) is logical consistency. But, even that assumption is based on the presumption that the human mind and the real world are inherently logical, hence share a firm foundation. I suppose Aristotle's Universal Principles are the metaphysical analog of physical atoms : not reducible to anything more fundamental. First Principles are simply labels for First Causes : the cornerstone of all practical knowledge. Example : the distinction between Substance (matter) and Essence (form ; qualities).

However, some fundamental premises are themselves subject to disproof, by stumbling across an exception to the rule. For example, physicists rejoiced when the long quest for the Democratean Atom seemed to be fulfilled in the 1800s, when Dalton & Thompson inferred that they had found the smallest possible piece of matter. Yet, no sooner had Rutherford produced his plum-pudding models, it was replaced by the planetary model of Bohr, introducing even smaller bits of stuff. Unfortunately, their dissecting & reductive methods soon hit a softer underlying layer of reality, which we now label, not as compact lumps of stuff, but as extended Fields of potential. Therefore, the 21st century foundation of the material world, now seems to be somewhat fuzzy & mushy, acausal & non-classical. Yet the operations of those amorphous immaterial mathematical fields have proven to have a perverse holistic logic of its own, as proven by the real-world success of "weird" Quantum Theory*1.

Apparently, Aristotle's First Principles were presumed "self-evident", based on his self-confidence in his own reasoning ability. But quantum scientists are no longer so self-assured, regarding their ability to make sense of the evidence available for the fuzzy logic of the sub-atomic realm of reality. It even calls into question our long-held assumptions about the linear logic of the Universe. Maybe our time-honored First Principles should be considered as local rules-of-thumb for taking the measure of the immense universe. :smile:


*1. Famously, physicist Feynman advised his bewildered students to avoid the trap of trying to make philosophical sense of quantum non-mechanics. Instead, "just shut-up and calculate".

Negative numbers, as some members have already realized, are simply extensions of numerical patterns, not forwards like how we're so habituated to doing but backwards. — Agent Smith

Good point! In Physics, changes in value can only proceed "forward" (positive) one-step-at-a-time. But in meta-physical*1 Mathematics, we can imagine the number-line as a whole, and see both forward (future) and backward (past) at a glance. Likewise, we can imagine Time as a number-line, allowing us to follow it back to the beginning of time . . . and beyond. That's why Physicists can only work on the here & now, while Cosmologists & Sci-Fi-ers can speculate on Multiverses-without-beginning and Many-Worlds-without-location. Such conjectures are mathematical concepts instead of physical observations. :smile:


*1. Meta-physics, in this context refers to abstract mental processes, instead of concrete material objects. Hence, has nothing to do with ghosts or spirits. Numbers, ratios, & relationships are mental concepts, not physical things. So, they can act in ways that are physically impossible, such as to go backward & forward in time, outside the momentary Now. To infinity and beyond . . . .

NUMERICAL VALUES EXTEND TO INFINITY IN BOTH DIRECTIONS

This could be related to what I think is perhaps the most basic function of cognition, to prime an organism for future experiences. — Enrique

In sci-fi movies, AI robots, such as the Terminator, are represented as recognizing a target person by rapidly overlaying templates, until a match is found. That match evokes recorded data ; which, among other things, allows the AI to anticipate what the target will do next. The template includes, not just physical shape geometry, but other properties & qualities that may be relevant to an encounter with the target.

Structural protologicality, intuitive notions of particularized form . . .
Linear protologicality grants all kinds of organisms the proficiency to execute reasoning sequences, — Enrique

Again, I'm afraid you are way above my pay grade in the technical aspects of cognition. I had to look-up "protologicality" to confirm that it means what I guessed from the Latin : primitive forms of logic. Apparently, its a non-symbolic (non-conceptual) logic closer to mathematical relationships, than to formal philosophical reasoning. That may be what I was implying, when I defined Logic as "Geometry with words"*1. Seems that may be better equipped to delve deeply into your theories. :nerd:

*1. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/725311

This is an introspective insight that fits well with my model. The image "seen" by reason could be at least partly a coherent and vibrational light/molecular field that the brain participates in generating, and the logicality or "abstract" nature of the image might be a product of neural architecture coordinated with this energy field, so that the experience "makes sense". — Enrique

I have toyed with the notion that the human brain comes equipped with "templates", abstract images, that we apply to percepts in order to "make sense" of them. For example, the male of our species may not be aware of how they came to be aroused, but somehow certain percepts (e.g. curvy shapes) are interpreted as a possible instance of the typical female form. Those templates may not be physically embedded in the brain architecture. But neural processes seem to direct conscious attention to those hypothetical templates, which may be mathematical instead of material. :nerd:

PS__In constructed architecture there are two kinds of "structure". The kind seen by the Eye is physical objects, such as arches, beams & columns. But the kind that is seen by Reason (ideal templates for comparison to actual things) is the abstract proportions, which indicate the balanced flow of forces in the building; and which we interpret as stability and beauty.

Template : an abstract (e.g. geometric) pattern that exemplifies an ideal form, which the perceiving mind wants to reproduce, or to recognize (know again).

What I mean by panprotopsychism is that fundamental matter is not conscious, but percept constituents that compose consciousness are material and form at very basic levels of emergence, — Enrique

Yes. Obviously "fundamental matter is not conscious" (dumb as a rock). But some foundational element of Nature must at least have the Potential for percepts & concepts. Otherwise, consciousness would have to be super-natural or alien.

Not all percepts are conscious (e.g. blind sight), but concepts (knowledge) are the essence of Consciousness. So, if anything physical is responsible for the emergence of consciousness, I'd nominate Energy (EnFormAction in my thesis). These natural forces are not just inert clay to be manipulated, but are causal, acting upon material nature to change its form. And Form (information) is the essence of Meaning to the human mind. :cool:

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

The question seems a correspondent of the most popular question “Was mathematics invented or discovered?” and relates to the nature of mathematics as well as to the philosophical problem of applicability of mathematics. However, there are anthropocentric and evolutionary features that the philosophical investigations on this topic have not focused on much: — Doru B

Most of the proposed answers I've seen, to the "invented vs discovered" question, seem to conclude that it's a little of both. The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in science indicates that Nature is in some sense fundamentally mathematical. But the history of math shows that humans using abstract "pure" mathematical principles, eventually find concrete practical applications for many of them.

That's why I have concluded that human Logic (Reason) is basically Geometry with words. Both manipulate abstract relationships (ratios ; relative values) in order to discover wider or narrower practical applications of those ratios. Ratios are inherent in Nature : for example, Energy is essentially a thermodynamic ratio between high & low, hot & cold, here & there. Likewise, Morality is basically an interactive ratio between me & you, us & them, good & evil. So, it seems that Evolution has programmed the human brain with a rudimentary sense of ratio, that we can expand on with education & practice. But, we can also lose that sense, when it is not exercised. Which is why I can no longer add 2 + 2, without the crutch of a non-human calculator.

I just read an article that deals with a similar topic : Human mathematics and God’s mathematics, by Catalin Barboianu, mathematician & philosopher of science. For the purposes of this thread, you can interpret "God's Mathematics" as the logical structure of Nature, and "Human Mathematics" as the human talent for discovering and inventing applications for that knowledge. He seems to believe that "to mathematize is human", so to speak : "Whatever mathematics is (science, method, formal language or logical symbolism), we do mathematics without being mathematicians". Yet, he also offers an alternative theory, that humans project their own subjective values onto Nature.

Speaking of subjective math, he adds that "The history of application of mathematics in the sciences also has a “mysterious” element. Being driven by their natural impulses of inquiring and generalizing, but also following some special criteria of beauty, symmetry and elegance specific to the mathematical creation". Although we can't yet describe the evolutionary mechanics that created the aesthetic sense in humans & animals, it's more taken for granted than viewed as mysterious. Without consciously thinking about it, we can immediately recognize the symmetry & elegance in a beautiful face. And some have even tried to reduce it to geometry. :yum:

"Contemporary pioneering studies in what is called perceptual mathematics . . . . came to shape an interdisciplinary cognitive theory that claims that all mathematics is human, resides in the mind, and is not an external product of the mind. The human mind is endowed with innate primordial perceptions such as spatial (metric, linearity), numerical, and topological (proximity, relational structures), reflected by the common empirical concepts such as distance,motion, change, flow of time, and matter. It is further hypothesized that animals also hold such perceptions.Thus, the concepts of mathematics are not platonic, but are built in the brain from these primordial perceptions, and brain neurophysiology gives rise to the extremely precise and logical language of mathematics
https://medium.com/@cb_67963/human-mathematics-and-gods-mathematics-682ac8e7bba

If somehow evolution has equipped us with mathematical minds, it is fair to hypothesize that the "book of nature is written in the language of mathematics" just because we see it that way. — Doru B

Some thinkers assume that Nature is Mathematical (abstract values, sans meaning) while others believe that Nature is Mental (logic plus meaning). So, I suspect that the replies to your topic will divide along those lines. A purely mathematical universe just is, and must be taken for granted. That's why many scientists assume that Energy (cause) & Laws (logic) exist eternally, and need no explanation. But some scientists observe that the universe, that began from abstract Cause & Laws, has evolved animated self-aware beings with personal values & meanings. How is that possible?

I'll propose that, logically, the Potential for Awareness & Feelings must have existed, in potential, along with Causation & Organization. Over time, that Potential for both Material and Mental processes has been Actualized into physical Bodies with non-physical Minds. Why do I label Mind as non-physical (or metaphysical)? Because, the reductive sciences of humanity have not yet discovered an Atom of Mind. So, they label Mental processes as "epiphenomena", hence, not nearly as important (for practical purposes) as Physical phenomena.

As a thought experiment, which would you prefer to be : a> a phenomenal Brain in a vat, without awareness & feeling, or b> an epiphenomenal Mind in a vacuum, with sentience & sensations. Your answer will reveal which you believe to be most essential to your being. Of course, a Mind without hands cannot do anything physical. But it can imagine doing anything imaginable. So, which is more important to you : Mechanism or Imagination? :joke:

PS__How about option c> a physical body & brain plus a non-physical mind? Is that the best of all possible worlds?

Epiphenomena :
1. a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process.
2. mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity.

Potential is Primary :
In physics as in Logic, an Action Potential necessarily exists prior to the Action.

If you have specific, credible, referenced, scientific information that describes or explains mental processes, please post it. That's what this thread is about. — T Clark

Since I'm not a practicing scientist, I don't presume to provide "specific, credible, referenced, scientific information". So, as an amateur philosopher, on a philosophy forum, I have to limit my posts to philosophical theorizing & speculation.

However, in my blog posts, I do include copious references to the informed opinions of professional scientists. And Information Theory is on the cutting edge of Mind research. I thought that might be relevant to a thread on the underlying causes of mental processes. But I now see that the OP assumes a narrow definition of what constitutes Science. So, I'll tune out. :smile:

I was clear. This is a discussion about mind from a scientific point of view, so there is no door open to "metaphysical philosophical concepts" unless they have specific, direct scientific consequences. — T Clark

Ironically, the "scientific point of view" has changed since the 20th century, in order to grapple with the non-classical & counter-intuitive aspects of Quantum & Information theory. For example, "quantum mechanics" is a misnomer, because that sub-atomic realm is neither quantized nor mechanical. Instead, it seems to be fuzzy & acausal. Hence, more amenable to philosophical methods. :smile:

But this is exactly what the people I have referenced are doing successfully. They are using standard scientific methods to study the "basic building block of Mind." apokrisis has suggested looking at mind from point of view of function rather than of process. I think that's similar to what you are proposing - a more holistic understanding. I'm still working on my response to him. — T Clark

Yes. I think of Mind as the "function" of the brain : what it does instead of what it is. In that case, the "basic building block" of mind will be an action instead of an object. That's why standard (reductive) scientific methods have given way to the novel (holistic) methods of Systems Theory, which is more like ancient theoretical & speculative Philosophy than classical empirical & factual Science.

Essentially, I view Mind as more closely related to causal Energy than to malleable Matter. Maybe the atom of Mind is an Erg (unit of work). But, I have coined my own philosophical terms, to describe Mind's relationship to Information, and the power to Enform (to cause change). However, I will follow your thread to see where it leads. :smile:

Systems Theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive [holistic] groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or human-made. ___Wikipedia

I made a mistake. I stuck my nose into the quantum effects on thinking trap when I didn't have to. I should have kept my mouth shut. That's not what this thread is about. It's about scientifically supported ways of thinking about mental processes not including consciousness. — T Clark

Oh, I see! You are interested in Neurobiology instead of Psychology -- neural nets & nodes instead of meanings & feelings. Apparently, you have a novel philosophical angle on that topic -- using plumbing metaphors -- that has not already been covered by Neuroscientists, who normally use flow charts & wiring diagrams. Unfortunately, by referring to "Mind" instead of "Brain", you opened the door to metaphysical philosophical concepts, instead of physical engineering diagrams.

I apologize, if my link to Enrique's posts has deflected your thread off-course. But I thought his expressed intention was similar to yours : The Physics of Consciousness. Maybe he sees a broader scope for Physics than you do. Even so, he also felt, at first, that my inclusion of Quantum and Information theory was off-topic. I suppose that's because he was thinking of "mental phenomena" in terms of classical Physical Phenomena : visually observable things and events.

However, as the OP expressed it, Mind is a continuous "process" (movie), not a single thing or event (snapshot). And ongoing processes cannot be observed via the physical senses. We only know Change by means of the the eye-of-the-mind, Reason, which cognizes (sees) invisible relationships between things & events. Yet, Cognition is not itself a material object, or a string of events, but something more ethereal : awareness, or as Damasio put it : "the feeling of what happens".

Consequently, trying to explain "mental processes" in terms of physical events seems to be a category error. But Shannon inadvertently gave us a clue to the Mind, when he applied the traditional word for the intangible contents of Mind, Information, to the coded data of computers. But those codes (strings of 1s & 0s) are merely symbols for meanings, such as "something" or "nothing". And meanings & feelings are hard to represent in still-shot graphic diagrams. Which is why philosophers and theoretical scientists resort to fanciful Analogies & Metaphors. :cool:


Neural engineering is an emerging interdisciplinary field of research that uses engineering techniques to investigate the function and manipulate the behavior of the central or peripheral nervous systems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/neural-engineering

NEUROMORPHIC ANALOG IMPLEMENTATION OF NEURAL ENGINEERING

I don't see the ideas I've described as reductionist at all. If they seem that way, it's probably because I cut off chunks to highlight the aspects I find particularly interesting. — T Clark

By "reductionism", I'm referring to the method of Atomism : dissect the material word far enough down to its foundations, and you will find atoms of Mind. Scientists have been using such methods for centuries, but still have not found the the basic building block of Mind (ideas ; knowledge ; awareness). Yet, they are still looking for the elusive "ghost in the machine". At least, Enrique is looking for a whole system (Cohesion ; Integration), not a sub-Planck-scale bit of matter (Atom). :smile:


Atoms of Mind: The "Ghost in the Machine" Materializes
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-1097-9

Is quantum physics behind your brain's ability to think? :
From consciousness to long-term memories, the human brain has some peculiar computing abilities – and they could be explained by quantum fuzziness
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-300-is-quantum-physics-behind-your-brains-ability-to-think/

panprotopsychist perspective, — Enrique

In order for the information paradigm to work, we will have to redefine what a bit is on multiple occasions. Maybe I'm not grasping an important aspect of the paradigm at this point, but information theory almost seems to me like materialism reified, with empirical content abstracted away from the episteme's foundation — Enrique

I parse "panprotopsychist" as : all + before + mind. But "proto" could also mean "earliest or most primitive form". If so, are you proposing some element of reality that is even more fundamental than Energy & Natural Laws? In the Enformationism thesis that primordial factor is EnFormAction (EFA ; the causal power to enform, to create novelty; to change ; to evolve ; the prototype of Energy). And the kind of Information we associate with minds (& computers) is just one form of the omni-potent EFA. As theoretical physicists have proposed, Matter & Energy are also forms of Generic Information (EFA). A religious term would be "the Will of G*D". But a philosophical term is Plato's "LOGOS" (the logical laws of reality). A scientific label might be something like "Energy + Coded Laws" (causation & direction).

In the Enformationism paradigm, a "bit" could be defined as an instance of EFA : an act of Creation or a bit of Being. Just like Shannon's "bit", those instances are uncountable. So, it is defined statistically as anything from Zero to 100% of all possibilities. Rather than defining Enformationism as "materialism reified" I would call it "materialism idealized" or "abstracted". That's because Shannon's "data" is purely abstract, and defined only in terms of numbers (math). Although the Information in your mind is abstract, in the sense of leaving behind the material flesh, it is metaphorically concrete, in that your mental images are skeletal representations of physical objects, as perceived by the physical senses. The abstract image in your mind is like the logical bones of a physical object. They can only be "seen" by Reason, not by the eyes.

So, the "important aspect" of Information that you are not grasping is the Meta-Physical element. I use the term "metaphysical" in the Aristotelian sense of "non-physical" : meaning "mental", "imaginary", "psychological", "philosophical". These aspects of our world are not subject to cyclotron splitting by physicists, or laboratory dissection by biologists. They must be experienced as conscious feelings or impressions. Yet, they can be communicated between Minds in the form of Words (abstract meanings ; ideas ; Logos). Hence, they will not be found in a search for the Physics of Consciousness. :nerd:

Matter, Energy and Information :
In the realm of physics, everything is matter-energy, a single element that takes two basic forms as explained in special relativity. Then Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, but added the element of information, which creates a feedback loop for the system.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf

So, down to work. I have presented some ideas about how the mind works from scientists I consider credible whose ideas make sense to me. I’d like to discuss what the proper approach to thinking about the mind is. I consider these good examples. My conclusion - the mind is not magical or even especially mysterious, although there is a lot we don’t know. Mostly it’s just a foundation of business-as-usual biology resulting in the very powerful and complex thinking, feeling, seeing, remembering, speaking faculties of the human beings we all are.

And please - no discussion of consciousness experience or awareness. — T Clark

, in The Physics of Consciousness thread*1 is also pursuing a physical explanation for how the mind works, without assuming any non-physical contributions. His theory is based on a technical concept of "Cohesion", which could be imagined as a novel physical force, but that I interpret in terms of "Holism" or "Systems Theory". However, both of those alternative approaches to Reductionism are more rational than empirical, hence more philosophical than scientific.

Anyway, it seems that excluding the non-physical aspect of mental processes runs into a blank wall on the Quantum level. There, "business-as-usual-biology" becomes logically fuzzy, mathematically uncertain, and physically unpredictable, as we approach the foundations of reality. Ironically, there is no there there.

So, the only way I see to find our way through the sub-atomic fog is to make use of a semi-physical tool : Information --- found in nature in three forms : energy, matter, mind. I agree that the mental functions of the brain are "not magical". But they are Meaningful ; which is inherently a "conscious experience or awareness". :nerd:


*1. The Physics of Consciousness
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/724342

As for the way measurement collapses superpositions into a particulate state, I think this must involve some kind of physical process — Enrique

Oh, it definitely involves a physical process, but it also seems to require a mental action, such as Intention*1 (goal-setting ; aiming ; direction ; purpose). In Beyond Weird, Philip Ball discusses the still unresolved "measurement problem". And he notes that "everything that seems strange about quantum mechanics comes down to measurement". Moreover, the non-physical aspect of an experimental setup*2 is the intention of the Experimenter/Observer. That's why I mentioned that the Latin root of "to measure" is mensura, and the root of mensura is mens-, meaning "mind" or "intention". That may be why physicists, such as John A. Wheeler, concluded that the Mind of the Observer "participates" in the experiment. So, a quantum measurement involves both physical apparatus, and a psychological act of intention.

Consequently, I interpret the act-of-measurement as the extraction of binding-integrating Information from the superposed wave into the mind of the experimenter. Thus, metaphorically, popping the non-local whole balloon into a particular entity, with both position & velocity in space. Over the last century, physicists & philosophers have argued back & forth about the role of the observer. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I have concluded that it's the non-physical Mind that makes the difference between a continuous wave of potential, and a localized particle of energy. It's not magic, but it is a sort of mind-over-matter causation. The wave is omni-directional & omni-potential, but the arbitrary choice of physical setup*2 forces it to reveal some otherwise hidden information (e.g. interference patterns ; like a herd of horses squeezing single-file through a gate in the corral )

That holistic non-scientific analogy also helps to explain why some information theorists go back to a time before Shannon inadvertently changed the meaning of the word "information" from "knowledge in a mind" to "digits in a computer". Hence, they emphasize the meaningful mental form of Information, instead of the abstract mathematical form. At the same time, a few physicists were beginning to use the term "Information" to describe something more fundamental than even Energy. Recently, physicist Melvin Vopson resurrected Landauer's speculation that abstract & meaningful Information can also become Physical, and has proposed experiments to test the theory.

I apologize, if I'm going off on a tangent from your OP. But I immediately saw the potential for combining your key notion of Cohesion (unity ; bonding ; continuity ; integration ; wholeness) with my notion of the essential inter-relating role of Information*3 (both physical & mental) in the universe. Those invisible, but logical, relationships are what makes Quantum theory seem spooky, when viewed as simply a mindless machine. The potential for Mind was in the material world from the beginning. It just needed to be cohered (squeezed ; channeled ; condensed) into a sentient form of Energy : e.g. Technology. :nerd:

PS__With Einstein's formula "E=MC^2" in mind, I have proposed that the cosmic constant "C" linking Energy & Mass is not just a meaningless abstract ratio, but defines*4 the relationship between Energy & Matter with specific information; like a setting on a dial.


*1. Intention : In billiards, the intention of the pool-shooter is what makes the difference between random scattering of the opening shot, and the subsequent non-random placing of balls in pre-specified pockets.

*2. Setup : like corralling horses, the wide-open terrain transforms into a fenced-in enclosure, as intended by horse-riding humans

*3. Information : (noun) data ; (verb) to transform ; to create meaning in a mind.
Note -- in its active form (to enform) I spell it with an "E" to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.

*4. To Define : to delimit ; to identify essential qualities (definition is a form of information)

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Information :
* Knowledge and the ability to know.
* Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance.
* It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine".
* Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict" or "Cooperation".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Cosmic Constant : This ratio is usually denoted by ΩΛ and is estimated to be 0.6889±0.0056, according to results published by the Planck Collaboration in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Note -- "Hawking proposed that the cosmological constant is probably zero in quantum cosmology". Its closeness to Zero may explain why the expansion of the universe is so finely balanced between Eternal Inflation & Eventual Collapse.

Idealism: Other minds exist!
Solipsism: Other minds don't exist! — Agent Smith

A direct & succinct answer to the OP.

However, both are unprovable inferences from Descartes' intuitive introspective "I am" argument. From that axiom, we can a> optimistically reason that similar minds exist in the bodies of our fellow philosophers. Or, we can b> pessimistically conclude that nothing exists apart from my own inner world model.

Both can be argued for or against, but not proven empirically. Yet, according to b>, even empirical evidence could be a product of my own world-modeling mind. We know both possibilities, only by reading our own minds.

From personal experience though, my own intuition is not smart enough to make-up all the observed complexities of reality. So, I have to assume that those counter-intuitive ideas & opinions are coming from external minds with different life experiences. :cool: