Interesting points! Intuition as opposed to logic and that intriguing way of defining God as existence itself. — Agent Smith

Modern philosophers tend to distrust Intuition, as a hasty & emotional instead of methodical & rational way of knowing. But Intuition is fundamental, subjective, and personal, hence it makes the strongest case for belief. Only after those intuitive embryos-of-thought are established can the rational faculties analyze them to select the ones that conform to logical structures, and that can survive the gauntlet of objective social criticism. However, even those ideas that are strong enough to become firm beliefs, are based on limited information. Which is why Bayesian inference was developed, to update our provisional beliefs with additional evidence. Bayes whittled normal human logic, based on conventional concepts (words), down to a mathematical (statistical) analysis of probability. But that bare-bones abstract result may lack the emotional impact of visceral Intuition as the foundation of faith.

Since I have concluded, intuitively & logically, that our world (our reality ; our existence) is highly improbable, given that its fundamental process is Entropy -- inevitably leading to death & disappearance -- the necessity for an exogenous causal force seems undeniable. Plato & Aristotle referred to that logically essential force as the "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover". But they seemed to assume that the Causal Principle of our existence must also lie outside the space-time devolution from Order (Logos) to Disorder (Chaos). In other words it must exist eternally, as Absolute Potential for the creation of Actual Reality from Possible Ideality. Plato also used the term "Chaos" (disorder) to describe that eternal resource of potential stuff. But he didn't mean it was chaotic in the modern sense, but merely that it was unformed potential (like malleable clay) that could be molded into enformed things & organisms.

Those ancient philosophers also spoke of "Being & Becoming". With that in mind, I think of our evolving space-time universe as Becoming, and the timeless power-to-exist-physically as absolute Being. Or, as others spoke of the same ultimate source of existence : "the ground of being". Therefore, as an alternative to the conventional religious label for that enigmatic eternal unknowable omnipotent Cause-of-all-effects, I sometimes refer to it simply as "BEING". :nerd:


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

And even after I asked you to take the argument to the other publicly available topic that I could continue this exact discussion with you on, you insist on posting some straw man
"All supernaturalist religion is pseudo-philosophy." — Nickolasgaspar — Philosophim

When our calm rational conversations become frictional, it's usually due to some prejudicial unstated presumption. And I think you have hit upon one here. The wet-blanket dismissive label, "Pseudo-philosophy", eliminates a whole universe of possible topics for rational discourse. Hence, channeling the dialogue into a narrow canyon for ambush by the forces of "true-philosophy". Fortunately, you didn't take the bait, to follow the feint. :cool:

Understood, but my argument counters that. If a first cause is logically necessary, it is not necessary that it be a God, because a first cause is not bound by any prior rules of causality for its existence. — Philosophim

I agree. That's why I refer to the philosophical Principle of First Cause or Necessary Being by various alternative names, including "BEING". But most people would equate those names with their own notion of "God". Which is why, for a while I spelled it "G*D", in order to indicate that it's not your preacher's notion of deity. Instead, it's what Blaise Pascal dismissively called "the god of the philosophers". Others call it simply "the god of Reason". That's what's left when you strip Religion of its traditional mythology & social regulations & emotional commitments. The power-to-exist is essential to living beings & non-living things, and is fundamental to philosophical discourse. It's the unstated premise of every assertion about what-is. So, I try to deal with the elephant-in-the-room head-on, instead of pretending it doesn't "exist" in conventional reality. :joke:

Starting Philosophic Problem :
One of the most fundamental problems of philosophy is related with the most meaningful philosophic notions, that is, with the categories of "being" and "non-being".
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Onto/OntoSolo.htm

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

G*D :
* An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, REASON, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
* I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

X exists then X is detectable — Agent Smith

This premise presumes physical existence, hence knowable via the 5 senses.

But most modern god-concepts deny that premise. Hence knowable only via the 6th sense of Reasoning or Intuition. So, the premise is prejudicial to most modern god-definitions.

One alternative premise is that "god is existence", the Necessary Being.
But how do you detect "necessity"? By physical or intuitive or logical processes? :smile:

PS__Apparently, most god-believers trust their Intuition more than their Reason. But philosophers seem less reliant on intuition, so require some Objective evidence to supplement their Rational deductions.

Yes. The point is that I see no philosophical argument at this time that can argue for God's logical necessity anymore. Feel free to try, but for the one's I am familiar with, they are all negated by the argument I've made. — Philosophim

The Catholic Scholastics were arguing in favor of their bible-god : paradoxically, both a timeless abstract concept, and a historical personality acting in space-time. But Plato & Aristotle were reasoning to the conclusion that there must be a Necessary Being in order to explain the existence of all contingent & dependent beings. It was a Logical argument, not a scientific demonstration. So, the later expansion of human scientific knowledge did not answer the philosophical question of "why something instead of nothing". The modern Big Bang theory has given substance to what was just an intuition in ancient times : the contingency (dependence) of our space-time existence on a priori causation.

Moreover, the definition of "existence" is different for Scientists (physical observation) and Philosophers (meta-physical prerequisite). The verb "to be" refers to a future state that follows from "becoming". So, the Necessary Being is supposed to be the meta-physical Cause of becoming into physical being. It's a tricky distinction that would only appeal to speculative philosophers, and not to pragmatic scientists. Which is why our modern knowledge of physical reality still does not "negate" the ancient intuition that a First Cause is necessary to explain the observed chain of causation in which new forms always emerge from old forms. For Plato, his ultimate Form is not an actual thing, but the Potential for all things.

Plato & Aristotle did not believe in magic or serendipity, so they reasoned that human existence was not due to Chance or Accident, but to a pre-existing Cause. They didn't refer to that dynamic causal power as "god" though, because the gods of their time were merely super-humans with limited powers. Instead, they used more abstract terms, such as "Form", or "Logos" or "First Cause", or "Potential" to describe concepts that are beyond human experience, but amenable to human reasoning & imagination. Their logical-god was not Real, but Ideal; not Actual but Potential. :smile:


Entelechy : realization of potential

Contingency : A possibility; something which may or may not happen ; not necessary

Potential & Actual :
These concepts, in modified forms, remained very important into the Middle Ages, influencing the development of medieval theology in several ways. In modern times the dichotomy has gradually lost importance, as understandings of nature and deity have changed. However the terminology has also been adapted to new uses, as is most obvious in words like energy and dynamic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality#Entelecheia_in_modern_philosophy_and_biology
Note -- Physicists assume that Energy (causal power) has always existed, of necessity.

Necessary Being :
Many have thought that if God exists necessarily, there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, or that if there is a sound ontological argument for God’s existence, God exists necessarily. But both claims are false. Some have used philosophical views of the nature of necessity – for example, that all necessity is conventional, a matter of how we choose to use words – to challenge God’s necessary existence. But the theories which best support these challenges have fallen from favour, and in fact, even if one accepts the theories, the challenges fail.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/necessary-being/v-1
Note -- Since Plato & Aristotle seem to have invented the notion of Logical Necessity, it was not a convention for them. But their definitions have since become conventional for philosophers, along with many other fundamental concepts of Inductive & Deductive reasoning. They are now conventional, because they are necessary for philosophical purposes.

I suppose you're on target. There are some systems that the moment you dissect/disassemble them they immediately stop being what they actually are. Life is a classic example: A cell is alive, as soon as you break it down into its parts like in a centrifuge, it dies. If so, did we really study/understand the cell? — Agent Smith

Holism is an ancient philosophical notion (e.g. Taoism). But, my eyes were opened to the modern concept of Holism --- as an Evolutionary Principle and a causal force (phase change) in the real world --- by the 1926 book, Holism and Evolution, by Jan Smuts. Note : NewAge spirituality later mixed ancient & modern versions of Holism into their worldview. However, that same core concept, as applied to physical Science, is what we now know as Systems Theory. For a general philosophical introduction, I highly recommend the Smuts book. I have two hardback copies, would you like to borrow one? :joke:

Holism and Evolution :
Smuts examines the reformed concepts (as of 1926) of space and time (chapter 2), matter (chapter 3), and biology (chapter 4), and concludes that the close approach to each other of the concepts of matter, life, and mind, and the partial overflow of each other's domains, imply that there is a fundamental principle (Holism) of which they are the progressive outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
Kindle format $3 at
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VISSWR6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Systems theory :
A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Other sources : Ludwig von Bertalanffy (General System Theory); Gregory Bateson (Ecology of Mind) ; Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela (Autopoiesis) ; Norbert Wiener (Cybernetics) ; Fritjof Capra (Systems View of Life) ; etc.

Emergence Theory :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

CONCEPTUAL ORGANIC HOLISM versus BLIND MECHANISTIC REDUCTIONISM

What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous? — Haglund

That open-ended chain seems to be the assumption of Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. But it mandates an endless regression of Causes, with no answer to the Origin question. Empirical & Pragmatic scientists might be satisfied with such an evasive answer, but Mathematical & Theoretical scientists tend to abhor infinities in their theses.

However, some speculative Philosophers & Cosmologists & Theologians seem comfortable with (or resigned to) Eternal Ellipsis ("God" or "First Cause" or "Multiverse" or "Many Worlds" ; insert your label "here") as a logical answer to ultimate questions about a proximate world. Apparently, for Plato the "First Cause" was an eternal Principle, which served as a stand-in for all those elliptical dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :sad:

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
___Albert Einstein

Cyclic Universe :
these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. — Gnomon
Which is fine. But it cannot be concluded via philosophical argument that such a God is logically necessary any more. — Philosophim

That's a strange assertion coming from "Philosophim" (those who love wisdom?). If a logical necessity cannot be derived via philosophical argument, how else could such a conclusion be reached : by fantasy? An "ultimate principle", such as Plato's Logos and Judaism's Singular Deity, is obviously not an empirical observation, but a hypothetical speculation based on the premise that a contingent causal world (subject to dead-end Entropy) must logically have an initial cause. And, in order to explain a finite chain-of-causation, it must have a definite beginning. And that First Cause must be acausal, hence uncreated, or merely a link in an eternal regression of causation. So, what is your "any more" that makes logical evidence un-necessary?

How else could we "evaluate" such a conjecture, except via rational analysis of the deductive process? Plato & Aristotle offered no physical (quanta) evidence to support their proposed fundamental (qualia) "Principle". Basically, all we can say about any such hypothesis (proposed explanation) is that it either makes sense or not ; it's believable or not. However, the "sense" depends on the definition. The OP definitively omits all non-empirical evidence, such as logical inference. So, "case closed" by definition. But most theologians & philosophers would feel discriminated against by such an exclusionary construction of the question. However, if a philosophical First Cause or Eternal Deity is taken as a "principle", it is inherently exempted from scientific proof. Which leaves us two options : evaluate the logic of the principle, or use force to compel agreement to its authority. :nerd:


Logical Necessity :
1. When something is logically necessary, it is true by definition
2. a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds ___Wiki

Monotheism :
Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself ___ https://plato.stanford.edu/plato.stanford.edu

Principle :
Principles are ideas based on scientific rules and laws that are generally accepted by scientists. They are fundamental truths that are the foundation for other studies. Principles are qualitative.
They aren't really rules that can be written down with mathematical symbols. They are more like guiding ideas that scientists use to make predictions and develop new laws. . . .
A law describes an event, but it does not explain why the event happens. Laws describe relationships, specific situations, and conditions. This is different from a principle, which tells us why and how things happen.
https://www.expii.com/t/scientific-principle-definition-examples-10310

PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no?

The argument for a God must be done through evidence. The only thing which can be logically concluded is that a God is a possibility among many others. This means there is nothing different about a God from any other existence. One must find evidence of a God, and that evidence must necessarily lead to a God opposed to another possible alternative. — Philosophim

Ancient people probably had no concept of an eternal or self-existent First Cause. Their polytheistic gods were merely names for invisible natural features of the world -- weather gods, sun gods, earth gods -- that seemed to control things that people depended upon for their livelihood, and which seemed to behave temperamentally, as-if they were living intelligent agents. Today, we have more control over Nature, hence not so dependent upon those mysterious natural forces.

So, we give them impersonal technical names -- like Energy, Force, Natural Laws -- and rest assured that those labels mean that we understand them. Yet, modern scientists may know more about what causal "Energy" does, but nothing about what it is essentially. For example, Energy is defined as the "ability", or "power" to cause change, but those attributes also pertain to human agents. So, it's easy to see why the ancients pictured their gods in human or animal form.

The Monotheistic notion of deity was a later development in the science-myths of early civilizations. That all-encompassing concept was probably a reaction to philosophical critiques of polytheism, as recorded in the Hebrew & Hindu Scriptures. If the deity is a formless spirit, not in physical form, most of the practical objections, such as "where's the evidence?" could be ignored. In the apocryphal chapter 14 of the book of Daniel, the hero proved empirically that the idol of Baal (Bel) was not actually eating the food offered to him. Yet, Daniel's non-physical god, with no need for food, was immune to such negative evidence. Ironically, his own Hebrew culture's tribal-god fore-runner also demanded food sacrifices. But, the scriptures say He survived a god-competition cook-off, by consuming the offerings to other gods with divine fire.

Therefore, a physical god as defined in the OP is indeed subject to empirical testing. Yet, the monotheistic definition of God can only be evaluated via logical philosophical argument. And modern science has nothing to say about such meta-physical (non-physical) existence. So, depending on your assessment of the logical evidence, you can believe it or not. However, there is "another possible alternative". Actually, several possibilities. For example, the First Cause postulated by Plato & Aristotle was not presented as a human, but as an eternal logical principle of causation & organization. As such, the only evidence for that kind of governing principle is logical consistency : e.g. an evolutionary sequence either has a first instance or it is eternal.

The current cosmological model implies that our world is not eternal or self-existent, so it's not its own Cause. Instead, the scientific evidence indicates that the universe is contingent upon some a priori Cause, existing before the Big Bang. You could say that the Singularity itself is the Prime Cause of space-time, hence a creator God. But, it's just an abstract mathematical concept, so is it worthy of the label "god". Or should we look beyond that dimensionless dot of Potential, for an ultimate timeless-spaceless Creative Cause of our own contingent Existence? :cool:


GOD OF THE DEAD PORTRAYED AS JACKAL MAN (scavenger of dead bodies)

but there's a difference between discussing the philosophical implications of physics, and the kinds of debates going on inside physics, which are pretty well by definition only intelligible to those trained in it. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, I get the impression that some aggressive posters raise such arcane technical questions in an effort to intimidate those outside the esoteric cabal of priests of Physics. Like you, I typically ask them to take-it-outside, as irrelevant (immaterial) to the "philosophical implications" of the topic under discussion. Typically though, they chalk-up that evasion as a triumph of enlightened Science over superstitious Philosophy. I for one, am inclined to allow them this little conceit, if it allows them to declare victory and beat a hasty retreat. :joke:


Sophistry :
A sophist was a teacher in ancient Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Sophists specialized in one or more subject areas, such as philosophy, rhetoric, music, athletics, and mathematics. ___Wiki
Note -- perhaps Philosophy Trolls now specialize in esoteric Physics.

It hasn't always been like this. Newton for example indicated that the reality, or truth of his first law of motion, what we call inertia, is dependent on the Will of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point. Until the Greek Revival / Enlightenment gave scientists the courage to abandon the age-old all-purpose explanation --- that the omniscient-omnipotent-god-concept explains all philosophical mysteries --- most sages & scientists were forced by their ignorance of ultimate causes to postulate a hypothetical First Cause, as a catch-all non-explanation.

However, as bits of physical evidence became woven into understandable theories of local causal systems, such as Evolution & Electro-Magnetism & Thermodynamics, the perceived dependence-on & necessity-for an ultimate Final Cause faded away. And Natural Laws were treated as mere consistent "constants" & "regularities" (necessities??), to be taken for granted, and not explained-away with Metaphysical metaphors.

Ironically, the presumptive triumph of reductive science, Quantum Theory, began to reveal new gaps in our understanding of fundamental reality. The search for a foundational Atom, seems to have found no physical bottom to ground our theories on. Instead, "quantum weirdness" appears to be pointing at ethereal "Mind Stuff" as the essential element of reality.

As a result, some secular non-religious scientists are beginning to take seriously such antique notions as Panpsychism, and futuristic sci-fi theories like a Mathematical Universe. But the implication of a Universal Mind to generate & contain the Mind-Stuff (information) is reminiscent of the ancient postulations of Logos and Deus. :cool:

Quantum weirdness goes deeper: It implies that the logical foundations of classical science are violated in the quantum realm; and it opens up a glimpse of an unfamiliar and perhaps older aspect of nature that some call the implicate universe.
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/WritingScience/Ferris.htm
Note -- "Implicate" means implicit or inferred intentional meaning

Mind-Stuff :
(Originally) supposed particles of mental substance in combinations which are perceived as matter; (in later use also) any rudimentary abstract substance from which ideas, images, etc., can be formed.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/mind-stuff
Note -- that "abstract substance" is what I call Generic Information and EnFormAction.

Natural Laws are not explanations :
"Even William Paley, 17th century author of Natural Theology, “the gospel according to anthropomorphic design”, quibbled over some of the current terminology. “The idea that postulating ‘laws’ of Nature gave explanations of design, he thought to be a form of mysticism, ‘a mere substitution of words for reason, names for causes’ “ Thus, he nailed the weakness of reductive cosmology : it assumes that a random mechanism without Reason or Purpose could magically evolve creatures that are characterized by both. "
BothAnd Blog, post 116

The Problem with Panpsychism :
In his Scientific American magazine article, science writer John Horgan questions an “ambitious” new theory [Integrated information] to explain how human Consciousness evolved from dumb matter, like atoms, to smart stuff, like brains. Or as he put it, “how does stuff become conscious?” His first introduction to the theory made him skeptical. And part of his doubt was due to the implicit Panpsychism (all is mind) of the theory. That sounds more like a religious or mystical notion than a scientific hypothesis. Ironically, as scientists delve deeper into the post-Shannon Information phenomenon, the more they tend to resort to ancient philosophical concepts to explain the ubiquity and power of the non-stuff that used to be imagined as the content of Minds & Souls. Horgan jumped to the conclusion that “This ancient doctrine holds that consciousness is a property not just of brains but of all matter, like my table and coffee mug”. He probably imagined little atoms chatting among themselves about the latest gossip.
BothAnd Blog, post 115

Isn't the whole made up of (simpler) parts? — Agent Smith

Yes. But the "Whole" is the immaterial "extra" (pattern ; arrangement ; logical structure ; metaphorical "glue") which unifies the physical parts into a system, not the parts themselves. It's the "more-than" which adds special properties of its own. If you try to dissect a whole into parts, it's no longer a whole. That's why Systems Theory was devised for Science, to study complex organizations, without killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The difference that makes the difference is organization (logical interrelationships), the bonding of parts into functional organs. A pile of sand washes away with the next wave, but a block of concrete (bonded grains) withstands the forces of entropy. A frog is a living organism, but when you dissect it into separate organs, what you have left is dead parts. :smile:


As nouns the difference between collection and system is that collection is a set of items or amount of material procured or gathered together while system is a collection of organized things;
https://wikidiff.com/collection/system

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. ___Wikipedia

Holism is the idea that various systems should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. ___Wikipedia

Holism :
Philosophy
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. ___Google

"Ironically, Kant's unknowable noumena are the very kind of knowledge that philosophers specialize in : speculation & conjecture into the unknown, and objectively unknowable, mysteries that are not amenable to scientific exploration" — Gnomon

Not at all. The later Kant was completely dismissive of speculative metaphysics. I won't try and explain what is meant by the philosophical term noumenon but it's not a catch-all term for spooky woo-woo. — Wayfarer

Ha! The joke's on him. Kant is now classified as a German Idealist, who trafficked in transcendental notions & a priori concepts. I assume the "metaphysics" he rejected was the same Catholic Scholastic doctrines, that the Logical Positive Realists on this forum ridicule as "spooky woo-woo". His own forays into theoretical reasoning, tried to have it both ways : practical Reason and impractical theorizing. But hay! That's what philosophy is all about. So, the alternative to speculative Metaphysics is empirical Physics. But you have to get your hands dirty doing physical experiments. :wink:

Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics :
Thus, Kant’s criticism of metaphysics simultaneously involves denying the pure use of theoretical reason as an instrument for knowledge of transcendent objects, and defending reason’s ideas as projections or goals that have some significant role to play in the overall project of knowledge acquisition.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

The Leibnizian metaphysics, the object of Kant's attack, is criticized for assuming that the human mind can arrive by pure thought at truths about entities ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Immanuel-Kant/Period-of-the-three-Critiques

Their answer, in essence, is that science doesn't know what natural laws are. — Wayfarer

Yes. Physicists just take Laws & Constants for granted, without further explanation. For pragmatic purposes, it's not necessary to delve into metaphysics, because they don't need to know "why" in order to know "how". Yet, philosophers, and some Cosmologists, don't limit their focus to practical problems. Instead, they feel free to speculate on impractical imaginary adventures in the Great Beyond : beyond the limits of physics, that is. Hence, such unverifiable conjectures as Many Worlds & Eternal Inflation. And Paul Davies impractical venture : The Goldilocks Enigma : Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?

Ironically, the physicist's pragmatic ("just the facts ma'am") attitude is similar to the Buddha's reluctance to ask or answer indeterminate questions. It's not that the scientists don't care about the answers to meta-physical questions (e.g. why?), but perhaps because they fear that they won't like the answers. Both Buddha & Physicists were disgusted with the traditional mis-directed answers of popular religions : "invisible spirits/gods did it". So, they tried to avoid any hints of supernatural (meta-physical) forces at play. :cool:

The unanswered questions :
The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. . . . .
The Buddha said that the seeking the answers to these types of questions will not help one on the spiritual path.
https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

So the conviction that the realm of contingency is the only real realm is the basis of the fundamental confusion (dare we say ignorance) of technocratic culture. — Wayfarer

Before the expanding-cosmos evidence convinced scientists that our universe is not eternal, as presumed --- but contingent upon some mysterious pre-bang law-making & energy-creating force --- it was easy to just assume that Reality is an eternal cycle, with inherent (defacto) unquestionable absolute laws & forces & substances. A story without beginning or end.

Now, they are not so sure, but still resistant to any suggestion that a spooky outside force was involved. That's why I view the Enformationism thesis as a bridge between physics & meta-physics, twixt nature & super-nature. The essential "substance" of material reality is also the essence of mental ideality : merely various forms of the same fundamental malleable stuff. Perhaps, in the age of Information technology, the notion of a pre-BB "enformer" is not quite so spooky. :gasp:

(I suppose this can easily be construed as theist apologetics, but it doesn't have to be. I'm agnostic about the reality of a Biblical God. But there's a broader metaphysical conception that subsumes many different, specific cultural forms.) — Wayfarer

I too am agnostic about anything outside of the Actual contingent realm we know & love. But, as an amateur philosopher, I enjoy speculating in the realm of Potential meta-physical Ideality. It allows me to ask the questions that the Buddha avoided, without falling back into the traditional doctrinal webs of theism and polytheism. I prefer to fall forward into the unknown realm of Possibilities : what might be. :nerd:

It depends on what sense of 'knowing'. This writer says that Kant claims that the noumenal is unknowable - but that both Hegel and Schleiermacher then point out that, even though the noumenal might be unknowable in any objective sense, in another sense, it constitutes our own being, that it constitutes us, as subjects of experience. — Wayfarer

Ironically, Kant's unknowable noumena are the very kind of knowledge that philosophers specialize in : speculation & conjecture into the unknown, and objectively unknowable, mysteries that are not amenable to scientific exploration. That's why only "mad-dogs" & philosophers go out into the sun-less mysteries of the Mind : Consciousness & Subjective Knowing. :smile:

One of the things that occurs to me is how often it is assumed that the phenomenal domain, the vast realm which is subject to investigation by the natural sciences, is, in this sense, the domain of contingent facts. — Wayfarer

Yes. The Big Bang theory caused cosmologists, such as Einstein, to reconsider their presumption that the physical world was eternal, hence unconditional. So some, including Krauss, began to look beyond the BB -- pre-phenomenal domain -- for a First & Final Cause of our contingent universe. But most of those pre-BB causes -- Many Worlds ; Multiverses ; Inflation -- are still assumed to obey the same physical laws as our Real world. So, the question of the (noumenal??) Lawmaker is still open. :cool:

n deep humbleness I dare to give a definition: information is matter being in formation. — Haglund

Yes. Although I would say that Matter is generic Information in a particular formation. Energy & Matter are different forms of general Information (E=MC^2). And the "formation" is called a meaningful pattern of information interrelationships. But "Energy" & "Mass" are mathematical concepts, while "Matter" is a conventional linguistic term to denote whatever has Mass & Intertia.

I just noted that Quora tech guru Victor Toth said, "Energy and mass do have consistent definitions."
“Matter” is a somewhat more poetic term, and its meaning often depends on context." :smile:

What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja? — Agent Smith

Ya, it does. The ultimate simple is not a part (one of many), but the Whole (all-encompassing Unity).
But, a better name for that unpartitioned infinite Potential might be a "holicale" (play on Holism). :joke:

But if logical necessity is separable from physical causation, then this claim can't be maintained. A logical inference is, in very simple terms, "that if this is the case, then that must be so". And here the 'must' is that of logical necessity. — Wayfarer

Slightly off-topic, but perhaps on point.

A physicist writing about Quantum Theory, clarified her use of the word "information" : "First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives." (Bateson : "the difference that makes a difference", a meaningful distinction in a mind) Her illustration is an if-then proposition, similar to your own. So, the implication is that fundamentally, Information (meaning) is a function of mental Logic, not of material Physics.

Hence, to restate your question : is Logical Necessity caused by some physical force or entity? Or is it a fundamental principle of Reality? Is it a law of Physics, or a law of Meta-Physics? Are natural Laws (physical regularities) necessary (absolute) or contingent (fortuitous)? If they could be otherwise, what was the prior Cause (the "must") of their necessity for the emergence & evolution of the physical world? Are natural laws a logical prerequisite for any functioning physical cosmic machine? Or merely for our local 'verse? Oh, yeah! Who says? :joke:


What is the difference between logical necessity and physical necessity? :
Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives. The basic unit of information is the bit, the amount of information you gain if you have no idea of the answer to a yes-or-no question and then you learn the answer.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-steampunk/

What kinda a particle would you say deserves the name The God Particle? It has to be, well, fundamental to reality as we know it, oui? — Agent Smith

Non. I use the word G*D, to refer to the Whole of which we humans and sub-atomic dots are merely Parts. No part is fundamental to reality. However, I do sometimes refer to Generic Information as "fundamental". It's not a particle though, but the Creative Potential for all real forms. Maybe, we could call it the "God Potential", non? :joke:

Why it's called the God particle? Because it's supposed to give mass (which can be explained in a more natural way)? — Haglund

It beats me! :smile: I'm not good or knowledgeable in physics.
(I asked that only to put Agent Smith's point in the right perspective.) — Alkis Piskas

To put this question in the "right perspective", here's the punch line : Physicist Leon Lederman labeled his book on the Higgs Boson as The God Particle, partly to suggest that it world explain one of the great remaining mysteries of physics : the cause of gravitation. But, the tongue-in-cheek name was also intended to be provocative, perhaps to tweak the know-it-alls who see no need for a Universal or First Cause of the physical world. :joke:

The Man Who Coined 'The God Particle' Explains: It Was A Joke! :
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/15/174440162/the-man-who-coined-the-god-particle-explains-it-was-a-joke

Then a schizophrenics self-image is not a delusion or a hallucination either? — Harry Hindu

Again, you are using a prejudicial comparison to implicitly label the trans-person as insane. I don't personally know any trannies, yet “gender dysphoria” is not considered to be a medical condition. Instead, it's an emotional distress, due to a conflict between self-image & social labels. Their "mental" problem is similar to other marginalized people, who are bullied in school and online.

I don't know where you get your information, but since your bias seems to be pretty firm, I won't try to argue with your other "mythical" assertions. Perhaps someone with more direct knowledge of the physical & social aspects of being a social outcast can offer you a different perspective of the gender/genetic story. :smile:

Myth #8: Transgender people are mentally ill :
https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938120/transgender-people-mental-illness-health-care

With respect to "the criterion of objectivity": I did some research on the word and found that it only comes into use in the early modern period. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting observation. The late emergence of "objectivity", as a formal verbalizable concept , may be explainable in terms similar to Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind. He proposed that explicit human consciousness was a consequence of complex social interactions, requiring words to distinguish me from you. I don't know if that thesis is provable, but it's certainly suitable for philosophical conjectures.

Another possible connection, that occurred to me, is the Golden Bough postulation, that the distinction between religious (magical) beliefs and scientific (empirical) thought processes may have evolved along with the emergence of technologies, that gave man more control over his environment. Again, It not only became possible to discriminate between objective Nature and subjective Mind, but it became necessary to articulate the difference between the subjective speaker and objective hearer ; between imagination and perception. My understanding of such things is quite superficial, but it may deserve more research. :smile:

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind :
The book addresses the problematic nature of consciousness – “the ability to introspect” – which in Jaynes’ view must be distinguished from sensory awareness and other processes of cognition. Jaynes presents his proposed solution: that consciousness is a “learned behavior” based more on language and culture than on biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind

The Golden Bough :
. . . . suggested to him that Hegel had anticipated his view of "the nature and historical relations of magic and religion". Frazer saw the resemblance as being that "we both hold that in the mental evolution of humanity an age of magic preceded an age of religion, and that the characteristic difference between magic and religion is that, whereas magic aims at controlling nature directly, religion aims at controlling it indirectly through the mediation of a powerful supernatural being or beings to whom man appeals for help and protection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough
Note -- Ironically, science has given us the technological power, "indistinguishable from magic", that the previous generations could only imagine, and pretend to do symbolically & metaphorically.

And I think you're still actually thinking within that mode, while wanting to see beyond it, and sensing something beyond it That's why you revert to the images of 'ghostliness' or 'ethereality' to depict your understanding of anything 'beyond the empirical', because you still are trying to conceive of what is beyond it in quasi-objective terms. — Wayfarer

Actually, the Enformationism thesis requires that I think beyond the conventional modes of Dualism & Matrerialism, into a more Holistic BothAnd way of thinking. Unfortunately, I came to that crossroad late in life. So, I'm still picking my way along an unfamiliar path. And, in my posts on this forum, I must assume that most of us are still thinking in terms of that "customary attitude". Until we learn how to read minds, and to communicate directly from mind to mind, we'll be forced to discuss "what is beyond" in "quasi-objective terms". :nerd:

I parse the entire subject of the reality of ideas differently. My view is that proper 'intelligible objects' such as natural numbers, scientific principles, and the like, are real, but they're not existent things - they don't exist in the same way that regular objects do. They are strictly speaking noumenal - meaning 'objects of mind', although the sense in which they are 'objects' is debatable. — Wayfarer

I suppose you are viewing "intelligible objects" from a god-like Rationalist perspective -- from outside the world system. As far as God is concerned, everything in the world is real, and objective. But. from the human point-of-view, we depend on physical senses for most of our knowledge of reality. So, what Epistemologists refer to as a priori knowledge is literally non-sense. We obtain such god-like knowledge via reasoning from specific sensory data to generalized concepts -- which are not real things, but artificial (synthetic) propositions about holistic collections of things & logical relationships. Hence, we can only communicate those intangible ideas in terms of metaphors analogous to physical things.

The Logical Positivists denied that humans are capable of "synthetic" a priori knowledge. So, they dismissed such non-empirical information as mere imaginary fantasies. I'm not a Logical Positivist, but I am aware that most people apply the term "Real" only to what they can see & touch. Any other forms of knowledge are either Un-real or Ideal or spiritual or "ghostly", and consequently their "existence" is debatable. That's why -- although Enformationism includes both aspects (real & ideal) as forms of Generic Information -- for the sake of clarity, I try to make a distinction between those ways of being. Even on this Philosophy Forum. when we discuss noumenal concepts, the debates can become never-ending. So, I am constantly forced to define my definitions to make sure that my Ideal meta-physical metaphors are not interpreted as assertions of real physical things.

Nevertheless, I like to discuss all "intelligible" topics, but those that are "synthetic" (rational) instead of natural (physical) need to be handled with kid-gloves to avoid mis-interpretation. Hence, a ghost is analogous to a human body, but some will take it to be a real entity, that under certain conditions, or with technical instruments, can be rendered sensible to the physical senses (re: shrouded image in previous post). So, I agree that "the sense in which they are 'objects' is debatable". :cool:

Where that presents difficulties, is that there is no provision in most people's minds for things to exist in different ways - in other words, things either exist, or they don't. — Wayfarer

Yes. But the Enformationism thesis is all about the "different ways" (forms) that things can exist. Which is what makes its phenomenal & noumenal topics so hard for some, especially philosophical Realists & Logical Positivists, to conceive. For them, you are either a truth-seeking Realist, or a fantasy-seeking Idealist. Hence, my complementary notion of BothAnd does not compute. :meh:

However I've had very little luck finding people to share these interests with, particularly so among my peers and therefore I'd really love to find people my own age with similar interests. — Nick563

Welcome to the club. At most human gatherings, philosophers are as popular as wet blankets. :wink:

On the bright side, this forum does have special categories for personal interests. Look at the column to the left, labeled "Categories". These may be somewhat less contentious than the more technical philosophical topics. :nerd:

There’s nothing ‘ghostly’ about mathematical logic applied to physical processes. That enables us to peer into the domain of pure possibility and actualise something we see in material form. That’s how inventions happen! — Wayfarer

It was just a metaphor. We can imagine logical relationships, but we can't see or touch them. So, we talk about logical relationships as-if they were physical connections. Those metaphors & analogies allow us to "peer into" un-actualized possibilities. And, by following the implicit Logic, to make some of those not-yet-real concepts/patterns become real physical things (inventions). "Spirit! Reveal yourself!" :joke:

The Experiment at the Institut Metapsychique, Paris :gasp:


PS__For clarity of exposition, I try to keep mental stuff (ideas) and physical stuff (matter) separate. If we refer to Ideals as-if they are Real, confusion ensues. They are not the same thing, but they are related as varieties of Information.

t's my guess that when matter, particles, are in some nice shape wrt each other, the total mass is someone higher. Or, on a memory chip, if the 1's and 0's show an ordered pattern, the mass of the chip is slightly higher than if they showed randomness. What if the showed total order? Say all 1 or all 0? — Haglund

I'm not sure what you meant by "nice shape", but in information theory it's the relationships that make the "form" or "pattern" or "meaning". So, perhaps the degree & kind of inter-relationship (0% to 100%, angular/linear, etc) defines the properties of the particle. But, I'm also just guessing. Along the same lines, I understand that energy at light-speed is massless, but as light energy slows down, it gains weight (mass). In other words, matter (mass) is just heavy light. Of course, physicists may not appreciate such an over-simplified layman's explanation. But it works for my amateur information-based worldview.

Regarding "total order" (100% crystalline), defined as completely non-random, there would be no room for motion or change, So the system would freeze-up like a block of ice. Likewise, zero order would be completely random, with no patterns and no forms or meanings. But the human mind is not equipped to even imagine such things, except in the form of metaphors (block of ice). Human logic only works in the normal range, in the middle of the possibility (Bell) curve. When we conjecture at the extremes, the margin for error approaches infinity. :gasp:

Are you saying that there are no such thing as delusional disorders? — Harry Hindu

No. You are interpreting a trans-person's self-image as a delusion. But, if so, your own self-image would also be a delusion. :wink:

So are you saying that there is a little homosexuality in all of us - — Harry Hindu

No. That's irrelevant to what I said. Instead, the implication is that a fertilized egg is not predetermined as male or female. Instead, it is transformed into one gender or another during development. So, copying errors of DNA, or delays in adding certain hormones can result in a fetus with features of both genders. :nerd:

Where is your source? Transgenderism is extremely rare (<1%). — Harry Hindu

No. I didn't say that trans-gender-people are 10%-15% of the general population. The reference was to all forms of gender abnormality. And the percentage is just a guess. LGBTQ people prefer the higher numbers, but what's important for us to understand is that gender anomalies are fairly common. If you want sources, just Google "genetic gender anomalies". :cool:

Political laws do not define gender. Science does — Harry Hindu

Unfortunately, political laws do try to define gender. :worry:

The legal definition of gender as 'the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society,' might change once and for all
https://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine.org/2019/11/06/international-law-convention-evaluates-legal-definition-of-gender/

You'll have to do better than this. The same can be said of someone that identifies as being a chicken. It's partly physical and partly mental. — Harry Hindu

There you go again, interpreting a person's self-identification (trans- or chicken-) as a mental disorder. That equation of gender & species is a sign of gender prejudice, such as Hitler advocated -- implying that gays are less than human. Genetic Science indicates that non-binary babies result from natural causes, not from mental disorders. :smile:

Homosexuals and Nazi Germany :
Homosexuality was classed as a “degenerate form of behaviour”
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/homosexuals-and-nazi-germany/

Causes of Gender Dysphoria :
It was traditionally thought to be a psychiatric condition meaning a mental ailment. Now there is evidence that the disease may not have origins in the brain alone.
Studies suggest that gender dysphoria may have biological causes associated with the development of gender identity before birth.
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Causes-of-Gender-Dysphoria.aspx

PS__I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not gay, and I'm not a gay-rights advocate. I just want to keep our philosophical discussions on an intellectual, not visceral, level.

I kind of agree on emotional grounds, but I'd like to come up with an argument that is harder forphysicalism to simply shrug off. Where all of this started, for me, was with the conviction thatideas (not information) are real in their own right, and not because they're derived from or supersede on (neuro)physical matter. — Wayfarer

Physicalists can shrug-off the power of information, only because it seems Idealistic to them. But, in the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information exists in a variety of forms, both Ideal and Real. That's the holistic-monistic-duality of the BothAnd Principle. From a reductionist perspective, reality is Either/Or (real or unreal). But in the holistic view, Reality & Ideality are two sides of the same coin. This unconventional notion is based on the science of Information, which has found that Mind Stuff (the original meaning of Information) is also the essence of Energy & Matter.

If that equation of immaterial Ideas with material Matter is true, then ghostly Ideas are just as "real" as physical objects. That identification of Mind & Matter does not compute in Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics has been forced to include the effects of minds on the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Of course, the interpretation of those experiments is still controversial. Nevertheless, I am assuming that Ideas are "real in their own right, and not because they are derived from . . . matter". In fact, in my theory, ideas have the right of priority, in that the original Singularity could not have been a physical object, but more like a program of ideas & instructions for creating a world from nothing-but the power of EnFormAction. :nerd:

Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

A quantum case of mind over matter? :
New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum-case-of-mind-over-matter/

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

So, I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer

In my personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, Logical Necessity is Causation. But that meta-physical notion does not compute for physicalists. They think that all causes are physical, in the sense of billiard balls smacking into each other, and imparting momentum. So, I think it's the reductive physicalists who are confused. But, Information science, has concluded that energy, force, momentum are ultimately various forms of generic Enformation (the power to cause changes in form).

I have interpreted that novel concept to mean that Information (mind stuff) is at the root of all changes in the world. For example, thermodynamic Energy is often expressed as a ratio between Hot & Cold. And such proportions/ratios are also found in logical relationships as the essence of meaning. In fact, I equate Logic & Math, in the sense that Logic is mathematics with words (concepts) instead of numbers.

However, I am aware that the connection between mental Logic and physical causation is not apparent to those with a Reductive approach to reality. Logical relationships are found in holistic systems, not in the isolated elements. In fact, it's the Logical "glue" that bonds parts into wholes. Logical Necessity is essentially a Tautology in that both sides of the equation are fundamentally the same. But, imbalance in the equation, is like applying a force to a see-saw to make it move. The motion/change is necessary to re-balance the system. :smile:

Momentum is a Ratio :
Momentum is directly proportional to the object's mass and also its velocity.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/8-1-linear-momentum-and-force/

Information causality :
Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

Information and Causality :
What is information? Can information have causal consequences?
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

ADD A FORCE TO CAUSE THE EQUATION TO BALANCE

That is clear evidence that you don't take such claims seriously. Why then would we accept, without question, the claims of someone claiming to be something that they are not when it's about sex? What is so special about sex in this regard? — Harry Hindu

If you are talking about trans-sexual people, those opposed to non-traditional non-binary gender roles, might say they are "claiming to be something they are not". But the trans- person might retort that society is trying to "force them to be something they are not". Yet, where does the truth lie, in objective observations from outside, or subjective feelings from within?

In the movie, The Crying Game, the protagonist found someone who behaved & appeared to be an attractive woman, but who turned-out, upon closer inspection -- and much to his disgust -- to have an unexpected appendage, that at first seemed to be a deal-breaker. But, he eventually falls in love with him/her, despite his/her congenital deformity. So, was his love the result of false advertising, or of his own realization that it's what's in the heart that matters in a love relationship?

Unfortunately, the sex/gender game is full of false advertising, from boob-jobs to macho-posturing. So, who is the best judge of a person's sex/gender, the person his/herself, or society & scriptures? Due to the rarity (10%-15% ??) of non-binary examples (out of the closet), most social systems have judged non-conformance to natural/cultural norms to be abnormal & unnatural. But modern science & technologies have demonstrated that mental gender is a continuum, not as clear-cut as the normal physical duality. Since some citizens feel & believe that their gender does not match their sex, who's to say they are wrong?

Hitler's worldview was neatly black & white, so you were defined as either Aryan or Jew, even if you had one parent of each race. And either Male or Female, even if your body is masculine, but your brain is feminine. Therefore, the question comes down to the old Social versus Individual political views. Who rules in such cases? Would you agree to have political laws define your gender against your personal wishes? I can't say, from personal experience, but that seems to be what the LGBTQ...xyz non-conformists are claiming.

What's so special about sex/gender is that it's only partly physical (body), and partly metaphysical (mind). Binary gender is clearly the norm, but Nature sometimes makes mistakes : allowing exceptions to the rule of Reproduction as the Reason for being. For all I know, some animals may be homo-trans-sexuals, but they can't speak for themselves, so they just do do as they feel. As long as humans don't interfere in their private affairs. :smile:

Gender Continuum :
http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-june-2014/breaking-through-binary-gender-continuum.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30556480/

What say you? Is this the era of the Third World ("era of undeveloped, impoverished, unstable and violent nations"). — Ciceronianus

From a slightly more positive perspective, I might label this "era" as the birth pangs of the Fifth World. The "fourth world" label is already taken, in reference to the almost extinct indigenous peoples, left behind even by the Third World banana farmers. In my sideline sociological myth, the "Second World" was the land of conquistadors & colonizers, who had the power to exploit Nature and older cultures via technology : machines, communication & transportation (or Guns, Germs & Steel).

But we are now entering the era of political & informational Globalization. Of course, while this jostling & merging of cultures is leveling the field of technology & communication, at the same time it is distressing ancient traditions, and conservative minds (generally, those on top of the power pyramid) who are defending the status quo. Hegel called this dance of oppositions, the do-si-do "Dialectic".

Human Culture is different from the rest of Nature, in the sense that it changes too fast for natural processes to keep up. So, we now find ourselves faced with the challenges of defending both vulnerable Nature (first world) and lower-level (third & fourth world) cultures, from our predatory (capitalist & oligarchic) successes & excesses. In other words, humanity is coping with the inner conflicts of cognitive dissociation (go-go vs no-go). This is not new though. Despite the warnings of Cicero, the decline & fall of the Roman Empire went through the same over-reach & internal divisions, that made them vulnerable to invading third-world Barbarians.

The invaders today are the same former colonists & indigenists, who are escaping (migrating) from third & fourth worlds into the settled (developed) second world -- which likes to think of itself as the rightful First World. In the process of migrating, they are shifting the balance of power in the whole world. Hopefully, the current destabilizing civil wars & emigrations will eventually settle-down into a new stability. But we may have to endure a dismal Dark Age in the meantime. Lets hope the invaders are smart enough not to kill the goose who lays the tide of golden eggs of technology, which in theory raises all ships. :cool:

BARBARIANS INSIDE THE GATES

Why, in your opinion, is the real on every occasion, portrayed as being worse than the illusion. Too good to be true is the taekeaway here, oui? You will recall that drop-dead gorgeous platinum blonde with an hour-glass figure dressed in electrifying red in the training program developed by Mouse in The Matrix? — Agent Smith

Oui, oui. Since the real world is good enough for survival, but far from optimum, the human mind has developed the unique ability to imagine something better than real. That illusory something is usually referred to as "Ideal". And that's why hard-nosed, leather-hearted Realists are so scornful of the impossible idealistic illusions fostered by optimists and religious authorities (e.g. heaven & nirvana). But, imaginary future states -- such as making-out with the woman in red -- are what drives ambition & progress for humanity. Yet, with age comes the wisdom to lower our expectations : in reality, that gorgeous woman is out of your league. :smile:

These organs (fully/incompletely developed) are, I believe, strong indications of ambiguity in sex/gender at a very fundamental level, oui? People getting mixed up about their gender shouldn't come as a surprise given the above. I'd say it'd be more astonishing if homosexuals and transexuals didn't exist. — Agent Smith

The ambiguity of some male/female physical features is not so surprising if you consider that the embryo -- formed from male sperm & female egg -- begins its development with basic female forms, and only at a later stage -- after certain hormones are pumped in -- begin to differentiate, with the fundamental human/female organs continuing on, and male organs beginning to specialize in drone functions : to service the queen, so to speak.

This scenario is reminiscent of Plato's myth of primordial androgynous humans with features of both male & female. Unfortunately, those all-in-one hermaphrodites were split by the inept gods into three genders : female, male, and androgynous. Presumably, that third option has developed over time into the anomalous LGBTQ . . . . xyz varieties of gender/sex that we find coming out of the closet today. :joke:

However, this relationship is incredibly difficult for me to make sense of, especially since it feels logically contradictory. Christianity claims to be monotheistic, yet the Trinity feels more like a pantheon, or maybe a relationship hierarchy or some sort. — tryhard

I suspect that the concept of a trinitarian deity resulted from 2nd & 3rd century theological debates over the nature & status of Jesus. The Jews, and most likely, Jesus's own disciples were strict monotheists. But after his unexpected & humiliating death, various rumors arose to explain why he didn't fulfill his messianic role of re-establishing the kingdom of Yahweh in Jerusalem. One speculation (based on cherry-picked scriptures) was that he had further work to do on the spiritual plane, so had to return to heaven. But that would require him to be a god himself (or a reincarnation of Elijah), instead of a mere sword-wielding human leader (messiah = royal descendant) of a political rebellion. Some of his recorded statements were sufficiently vague & provocative that various interpretations could apply.

But, for polytheistic gentile converts, monotheism was not inherent in their tradition. So they didn't consider the god-man concept to be blasphemous or sacrilegious (e.g Pantheon). Also, Jesus had made metaphorical references to the Holy Spirit as-if it was a person, not just a divine force. As the Catholic Church was being cobbled-together from a variety of Jesus cults, their contradictory myths became an obstacle to unification within the Roman empire ("catholic" = universal). So, the leaders from various places began to hold unification meetings in order to hammer-out their differences. Since it was mainly a political argument, they didn't depend on a sign from God, but merely debated & voted, and the majority opinion became the "Truth"

Unfortunately, their good intentions were frustrated, and in order to establish a single authoritative myth & origin-story of the new religion, they were forced to vote the heretics out of their club. But first they had to legally define what beliefs were orthodox, and which were heresy. Ironically, a crux of the debate was on the vexing question of Jesus' role in the religion : god apparition, or inspired prophet, or pretender to the throne, or god-man avatar. Since the latter option was unacceptable to monotheists, the Jewish Christians soon found themselves expelled as reverse Gentiles (literally, not God's people).

Therefore, instead of a continuation of the Abrahamic genetic-tribal heritage of the Jewish religion, Christianity became a distinct new faith-based religion, excluding the Chosen People of the Old Testament God, in favor of the the uncircumcised "Gentiles". With the Jews rejected from their own religious movement, there was no one left, in the radically new Roman imperial Church, to point-out the logical contradictions found in the authorized scriptures of the official state religion. Besides, mystical mythical paradoxes were not unusual in ancient religions. And, the gentiles were typically not as piously legalistic as the Jews. So, even as the theologians continued to debate privately, for the sake of unity, they decided to convince the uneducated common people that a piece of physical (material) bread could also be a metaphysical (spiritual) hunk of flesh. To some, that was a divine spiritual insight. But, the paradox-vs-precept debate continued on the fringes to this day. :smile:

I've been thinking about the statement "trans women are women," and seem to think whether one agrees or disagrees with this term comes down to how one defines or identifies woman (i.e. how closely is it related to sex at birth). I'm very new to philosophy of language so I'm very curious how these definitions are related to the creation of meaning. — Paulm12

The current LGBTQ . . . .xyz controversies revolve around a problem that scientists & philosophers have not been able to resolve : what makes a man/male or a woman/female? As a corollary, what makes an objectively female body subjectively feel like a man, and vice-versa? So, far we don't find any definitive difference in the brains, apart from volume, which is limited by body/skull size. MRI scans do show some characteristic features of male/female brains, but interpreting those colorful blobs is highly subjective and subject to personal bias*1.

Even more difficult to understand is the psychological experience of discerning a male from a female. In extreme cases -- a voluptuous or muscular body shape -- the superficial difference is pretty obvious. But we sometimes find some physical exemplars, who prefer to have sex with their own gender. That is obviously counter to the reproduction purposes of evolution; hence abnormal. So how can we explain those not-so-rare anomalies? The gender-identification-algorithms in the brain produce automatic sub-conscious physical responses : "is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"

So, it should be clear that nonbinary people don't deliberately choose their sexual preference. But traditional mores are based on the Norm, and hostile to the Abnormal. Hence, the religio-political civil wars tend to divide those who judge by "face value", versus those who try to read minds. The current "don't say gay" laws are trying to censor "evil beliefs" by making certain behaviors illegal. We went through a similar polarized religio-political struggle back in the 1950's "McCarthy era". Ostensibly law-abiding citizens were challenged in court : " are you now, or have you ever been . . . . X". At the time, aggressively evangelizing Communism was not only economically abhorrent to Capitalists, but also morally loathsome to Christians.

Ironically, the Bible makes no mention of Trans-sexual behavior explicitly, but men & women were traditionally forbidden to wear clothes commonly identified with the opposite sex. Which is why the sight of women wearing pants was offensive to some cultures and not to others. So, I suspect that in modern secular societies gender-roles are more fluid than in the past. And traditional religious & cultural mores are currently on the defensive, but not yet defeated by the forces of "Evil". The bottom line is that your gender is not defined by your personal subjective preferences, but also by cultural objective labels. Meaning is in the mind of the beholder. :cool:


*1. Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

I recall making an argument that the fact that people think it's possible for reality as we know it to be an illusion (simulation) implies that the real McCoy (true reality) is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the copy (virtual reality). Why should anyone then try to, well, wake up from what we fear/suspect is only a dream? The doubt would only reappear even if it does so, now, at another level so to speak. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's the argument Cypher made in The Matrix : the illusion was the only reality he had known, before he was "woke" into the harsh reality of the dismal subterranean refuge of the metaphorically named Zion. Several scientists & philosophers (ding an sich) have discussed the same problem with simulated-reality proposals : if you can't tell (experience) the difference, what's the difference? However, as lusty French males used to say, in a different context, "vive la difference". :smile:


“I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.”
___Cypher

I'm sure someone/something smart enough like post-technological singularity AI will find a workaround for such obstacles to omnscience, if they even exist that is. — Agent Smith

In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, David Chalmers is interviewed about his latest book : Reality +. It's described as "an adventure tour of computer-simulated worlds and virtual reality". He uses the modern metaphor of Virtual Reality in a manner similar to that of Plato's Cave. He describes his Reality + concept in terms that are amenable to my own Enformationism thesis. "The fact that we are conscious beings does not negate the idea that we are sims, since consciousness is substrate independent, emerging from the organization of a complex system, . . . the entities in virtual reality are real . . . they are digital objects, made of information or bits." [my bold] The video game movie TRON is a good illustration. When the hero is inside the game, that simulated world becomes his reality. The only difference is that when you die in our "virtual" reality, you can't leave the game and go back to your "actual" reality. That is, unless there is a techno-heaven for virtual souls to retire to. The interviewer sums up the book : "It is likely that we live in a computer simulation but that should not worry us because everything is still real".

Remember, though, that this technophilosophy book uses metaphors to convey his projection of possible futures. They are not divinely inspired prophecies. Chalmers, says "one central part of my work on consciousness has been arguing that machines can be conscious". With that in mind, he cautions that self-conscious AI, like SkyNet in the Terminator, could become a destructive force in the world, just as self-assertive as Vlad Putin's meat mind. So, we (or AI machines) will still be faced with the ancient philosophical problem of recognizing Evil, and choosing Good. He also notes that "maybe physics can't add up fully to an explanation of consciousness because physics is mostly a kind of abstract causal structure but consciousness goes beyond that". The main problem with relying on Physics is that it is Reductive and narrowly focused. So, philosophers of Consciousness (meta-physics) must be Holistic, with a broader perspective.

Chalmers compares his VR metaphor with Descartes' warning that what we take to be real could be due to an evil Daemon creating an illusion to veil the true reality. "You can think of the evil demon's world as being a type of virtual reality". However, in Chalmer's analogy, the VR is our actual reality. That may sound confusing, but the interviewer notes that, "philosophers use metaphors that are emblematic for their age. . . . . Voltaire believed that God was a clockmaker . . . . the concept of a computer-simulated universe is simply a case in which the metaphor has displaced the real". In that case, you could imagine that "God is a hacker in the next universe up". Which is similar to my own metaphor of the First Cause as the Programmer of our evolutionary program. I don't take that notion literally, so it's merely a way of thinking about our Information-based reality. :nerd:

Nice! What about the fact that, on the whole, entropy has the upperhand, vis-à-vis negentropy? That there's more disorder than order is a fact, oui? In other words negentropy is fighting a losing battle...eventually life, the paragon of order, will fizzle out (heat death of the universe). — Agent Smith

Yes. Enformy is an underdog in the race to the Final State of the world. It's also a slow starter, taking almost 14 billion years to produce living & thinking creatures. But we are only approaching the midpoint of the projected lifespan of the universe. So, you could guess, now that Enformy has finally gotten up to speed, it could overtake stumbling Entropy before the finish line. Some positive thinkers, such as futurist Ray Kurzweil and AI enthusiasts imagine that rapidly-accelerating human technology will replace plodding physics & biology as the organizing force behind upward evolution.

Of course, we can't be sure of those optimistic scenarios, and I don't expect to be around to see the Omega Point. But the mere fact that such progress is thinkable, should allow us to view self-organizing Evolution & constructive Enformy in a rosier light. The scientists, who calculated the heat-death of the world, did not include the positive effects of Enformy (Negentropy) in their calculations. You could say that Enformy gave Entropy a 14 billion year head start, displaying confidence that future-oriented organized intentional design (e.g. technology) is faster on its feet than haphazard trial & error heuristics. Which would you bet on? :nerd:


TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION


COSMIC PROGRESSION

So, according to you, it's all information. How do you reconcile the fact that information can be true/right or false/wrong with your BothAnd Principle, which seems to ignore or set aside true/false and right/wrong dichotomies, preferring a synthesis of opposing views rather than resolutions where one side wins the debate? — Agent Smith

Yes & No. The BothAnd Principle merely acknowledges that the world-system has the Potential for both good and bad effects on human aspirations, including the preference for Life versus Death. However, we are not guaranteed to get what we desire. So, we try to make the best of an imperfect world, by balancing the bad with some good. Individually, we can aim high for what's best for me. But as components of a collective society there are trade-offs. What's good for me (e.g. becoming a billionaire, may deprive millions of others of a living wage) might be bad for someone else, which could ultimately become bad for me. What goes around, comes around.

The essence of the BothAnd principle, is the Golden Rule plus the Golden Mean : avoid extremes, and be content with moderation. Nothing new about that ancient wisdom, except that it is necessitated by the understanding that Information is a continuum from 1 to 0, or 100% to nothing. If you get 100%, someone else might get nothing. And. depending on circumstances beyond your control, you could be that someone-else. That's why Kant's Imperative was basically : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

In a more technical sense, Information (EnFormAction) is like Energy : in excess, it becomes an inferno ; or in deficit, it becomes a deep-freeze. So the Goldilocks or Habitable zone is merely warm-enough to be "just right". That's why philosophers of all eras have agreed that balance & proportion & moderation are better, for all concerned, than imbalance, overabundance, & exorbitance. Depending on the circumstances, though, the balance point is not necessarily at the mid-point. Which is why the BothAnd Principle must be applied with wisdom. :smile:


The Goldilocks Enigma :
Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot