Again the objective view relegates us to blip-hood in our own minds. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why the quantum physics discovery of an active role for the observer challenged the Copernican Principle, that Earth and its inhabitants entail less than .00001% of the matter in the universe. But your focus on who is doing the observing implies that -- as far as we know -- earthbound subjective observers constitute at least 99% of the sentience in the world. The contrast in those views reveals the values of each commentator : Mind or Matter. :nerd:

I've been reading The Huxleys, Alison Bashford. — Wayfarer

I noticed that Chapter 2 of the book labeled the insignificant "blips" in the universe as "trustees of evolution". A "trustee" is one who administers the affairs, and makes decisions, on behalf another who is incapable. Hardly a role for a mere blip. :wink:

The Huxleys, An Intimate History of Evolution :
2 Trustees of Evolution: The Intellectual Inheritance
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo187886458.html

It also shows that T H H was scrupulously agnostic, as distinct from atheist, and that he disdained the Dawkin's style of scorched-earth scientific atheism. — Wayfarer

Ironically, in his book debunking Theism --- although he dismissed it as "watered down theism" --- Dawkins admitted that Deism could be considered the "god of the physicist". It was probably Blaise Pascal, the god-gambling philosopher, who dismissed Deism as "the god of the philosophers. :cool:

The God Delusion :
The debate was titled "Has Science Buried God?", in which Dawkins used a form of an Eddington concession in saying that, although he would not accept it, a reasonably respectable case could be made for "a deistic god, a sort of god of the physicist, a god of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

We’re the only ‘tiny fraction of the cosmos’ who know what that means. It’s amusing in the extreme that objective science, which is a cognitive mode only available to h. Sapiens, then declares its authors insignificant in the ‘grand scheme’ - a grand scheme that is their own mental creation!
(I have read that that Tipler book is unbridled nonsense, but the Tipler and Barrow book The Cosmic Anthropic Principle seems reasonably well-regarded.) — Wayfarer

Yes, but I'd say : "bemusing". The Weak Anthropic Principle*1 seems to be reasonable & uncontroversial. And in accordance with scientific guidelines. But Strong AP interpretations go beyond un-interpreted "self-evident" facts, to infer that intelligent observers were inevitable or even intentional. So, it's conjecture, not verified fact; hypothesis not observation. The authors, both physical scientists, try to make it clear when they cross the line.

The conjecture of 'Fine Tuning" raises the spectre of Intelligent Design. It also contradicts a common presumption of many scientists and philosophers : the Copernican Principle*2, which trivializes your observation that mere human observers & inquisitors are the ones asking the cosmic questions*3. To whom else would it matter if the world was a fortuitous accident? To whom would a world of intrinsic intention (meaning) be regarded as "unbridled nonsense"? To whom would Teleology be a "bad interpretation" of a directional pattern in evolution?

Modern Cosmology traces, in retrospect, the development of a hypothetical initial eruption of energy & matter from an unknown Prior State --- which contradicts the law of thermodynamics : that nothing moves without an internal (animation) or external (momentum) Cause. This uninterpreted model of Origins is satisfactory for the worldviews of Physicalism and Materialism, only if homo sapiens is presumed to be an "insignificant" accident of history. But most of us smart apes tend to hold a higher opinion of our role in an uncaring world : to care about what happens, and to whom it happens. That non-mechanical affect-of-feeling is hard to imagine as a random accident of gambling atoms. Hence, the Hard Problem. :smile:


*1. The anthropic principle is the belief that, if we take human life as a given condition of the universe, scientists may use this as the starting point to derive expected properties of the universe as being consistent with creating human life. It is a principle which has an important role in cosmology, specifically in trying to deal with the apparent fine-tuning of the universe.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-anthropic-principle-2698848
Note --- The uncanny "fine-tuning" of many dimensionless constants was a surprising observation. That those numbers are also necessary to permit life to emerge, was an unexpected inference. Together, those fortuitous "facts" are used in the "FT argument" to imply that evolution is not completely random, but follows rules compatible with "life as we know it".

*2. The Copernican Principle :
Which asserts as a “principle” – based on 17th century observations – that “we [humans] do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe”. To which, the authors reply that “our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers”.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- If astronomer-occupied Earth is not in a "privileged" position to judge the provenance of their own Life & Mind, where else would be a better perch for observation of the Cosmos as a whole system? Where better, except the view-from-everywhere of a god, or omniscient other-worldy alien?

*3. How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science :
Barrow and Tipler go further, and offer alternative interpretations, including:
a. The Universe, as it exists, was designed with the goal of generating and sustaining observers.
b. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.
c. An ensemble of Universes with different fundamental laws and constants are necessary for our Universe to exist.
If that last one sounds a lot like a bad interpretation of the multiverse, it's because all of Barrow and Tipler's scenarios are based on bad interpretations of a self-evident principle!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/26/how-the-anthropic-principle-became-the-most-abused-idea-in-science/?sh=a2235d77d690
Note --- Strong TAP is a "bad interpretation" only because it contradicts the objective empirical science principle of Parsimony : avoiding assumptions & imputations that are not evident. Hence, it is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. Besides, in practice, the simplest solution is not always the most accurate. The book does not claim that TAP is empirical or verifiable; it's just a hypothesis.
a. Intentional design is taboo for Modern Science. b. Self-creating observers is spooky. c. An infinite multiverse is compatible with Physicalism, but an eternal spiritual Creator is not. And neither is empirically verifiable. So, what would option "d." be?

*4. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor² lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- That "life-giving factor" is what Bateson labeled elan vital, and others Chi or Prana. My own term for the evolutionary engine combines Energy with Information : EnFormAction.

He (Laplaca) doesn't need a math Demon or God. Because there is no selection done. — ssu

I'm afraid you're getting way over my head, since I know nothing about Laplace, except for a couple of famous quotes. I assume you're referring to Laplacian Scores (I Googled "Laplace Selection"), but I won't be able to follow your reasoning on that "score".

However, I do infer that his reference to an "Intellect", capable of knowledge that is beyond human ability, was an oblique reference to a god-like mind, without using that taboo word in a scientific context. Later philosophers made the same inference, but used a different term, "demon"*1, to indirectly imply super-human observation & calculation powers. :nerd:

*1. Laplace's Demon :
This intellect is often referred to as Laplace's demon (and sometimes Laplace's Superman, after Hans Reichenbach). Laplace himself did not use the word "demon", which was a later embellishment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

If you define the future being that will truly happen in reality, you do have determinism: no chance, no choice, no uncertainty. It's really the block universe, everything is predetermined, like this discussion with you and others. It will go only one way and that's it. — ssu

I doubt that Einstein intended for his as-if Block Universe metaphor to be taken literally. But, as you noted, such a world would be completely predestined, and unlike the probabilistic (partly randomized) reality*2 that us humans have to deal with. Perhaps you are arguing against Causal Determinism*3, as an argument against human Choice & FreeWill. If so, I'd have to agree with you. :smile:

*2. Order within Chaos :
Chaos is where things are so complex that you can't handle it and order is where things are so rigid that it's too restrictive. In between that is a place that's meaningful; where you're partly stabilized and partly curious.
https://zaidkdahhaj.medium.com/how-to-practically-understand-order-chaos-8c4fefb12e30

*3. Determinism :
Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Determinism

But then there is the real twist: this understanding of the universe is useless for us. We cannot model it, we cannot extrapolate from it because we are part of the universe and thus we have this limitation on modelling. — ssu

I'm not very familiar with Wolpert or Cantor, so "diagonalization" doesn't mean much to me. I suppose our "limitation on modeling" means that, pace Einstein, most of us parts-of-the-whole are not even close to omniscient. What does "negative self-reference" mean to you? In layman's terms, please. :wink:

Buddhism, for one example, has had this creed of "no origin" for a few millennia now. — javra
Buddhism actually has a rather strange and not very well known creation story. — Wayfarer

I'm no expert on Buddhist beliefs, but a quick Google indicates that there is no single dogma on the topic of Evolution ; instead there are "schools of thought"*1. One description*2 sounds like a world marking-time -- marching in place -- without any progress : perhaps an eternal alternation between Potential & Actual : cosmic vibrations of positive & negative energy. However, the rapidity of alternations might make a series of still-shots look like a movie, to an outside observer.

The oscillating-non-progressive school of thought makes no sense in the light of modern physics, unless you interpret those eternal positive/negative alternations as the essence of creative Energy vibrations (or quantum fluctuations) that could serve as the Cause of our Big Bang model. That flickering-reality notion might accord with the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Uncertainty : "This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe" ___Wiki.

Like Buddhist traditions, modern cosmology has produced a variety of explanations (opinions ; schools of thought) for the existence of our evolving home-world. The Big Bang theory even sets a birth-date for the beginning of our own bubble of space-time. But a "no origin" theory avoids the Creation problem by arguing that Time is only local*3, implying that space-time-vacuum energy is eternally creative of local bubbles. Despite the various hypothetical attempts to work around the empirical evidence for Creation From Nothing, the most logically acceptable explanation*4 for existence is the one with a creation event evocative of Genesis*5. :smile:


*1. No Beginning vs Alternation of Potential/Actual :
There are three schools of thought regarding the origin of the world. The first school of thought claims that this world came into existence by nature and that nature is not an intelligent force. However, nature works on its own accord and goes on changing.
The second school of thought says that the world was created by an almighty God who is responsible for everything.
The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm
Note --- "No Reason" ? see *4 & *5.

*2. Buddhism and Evolution :
Buddhists believe the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhists believe that the world was not created once upon a time, but that the world has been created millions of times every second and will continue to do so by itself and will break away by itself.
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33133

*3. Does time have a beginning? :
After the Second World War, two different schools came to dominate cosmological thinking. One told a story in which time begins at the Big Bang, while in the other, there is no cosmic time and no Big Bang — time passes locally, but the Universe remains the same on average. The two schools would go to battle to decide who was right.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/does-time-have-a-beginning/

*4. Is the Big Bang still the most accepted theory?
A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

*5. Creation with a Bang :
The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. The best-supported theory of our universe's origin centers on an event known as the big bang.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/origins-of-the-universe

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? — Arnie

No and Yes. All living organisms must be able to sense both positive and negative environmental impacts on Self. So, focusing solely on the negative is Pessimism, unbalanced by Optimism. Such an attitude only adds to the suffering, by ignoring the soothing. The Good is not beyond the Bad, but parallel to it. :smile:

When you read that, I don't see any reference to any open ended question rather than perhaps the difficulty of knowing "all forces that set nature in motion" and obviously "all positions of all items of which nature is composed". — ssu

Your quote is exactly the "open-ended question" I referred to. Is it possible to calculate the future position and momentum of multiple particles accurately enough to predestine the end of the world? The "intellect" he postulated is not any known entity in the physical world, so others labeled it a "demon" or "daimon". For the ancient Greeks, a daemon was a lesser deity with limited powers. But for Enlightenment Age philosophers & scientists, the term "demon" was an oblique reference to an omniscient being, which for Christians would be the unlimited deity known as "God".

Laplace's hypothetical metaphor was open on both ends, in the sense that a> it postulated a supernatural entity to serve as a stand-in for Christianity's deterministic creator, and b> in his assumption that future events, to the end of the physical world, could be prophesied by the all-knowing daimon, presumably by mathematical calculations. However, years later mathematicians bumped heads with the "three-body problem" of complexity, and eventually Goedel concluded that human mathematics will never be able to predict world events (e.g. weather) beyond a few days in advance.

Those impediments would doom "natural" computations of far future events. So, only a truly omniscient & omnipotent supernatural deity would be able to create a predestined world, with a certain beginning and end. Hence, Laplace's mere "difficulty" for a far-sighted daemon, would be "impossible" for a natural being, living within the incredibly complex system he's modeling. Ironically, some modern scientists, working with a classical model of reality, ignore the role of Chance, Choice, and Uncertainty. :nerd:

"Laplace's Demon" concerns the idea of determinism, namely the belief that the past completely determines the future. Clearly, one can see why determinism was so attractive to scientists (and philosophers — determinism has roots that can be traced back to Socrates). Indeed, this passage had a strong influence on setting the course of science for years to come, and by the early 1800's determinism had become very firmly entrenched among many scientists. In Laplace's world everything would be predetermined — no chance, no choice, and no uncertainty.
https://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/laplace.html

The next question is that can randomness be defined also with this phenomenon in mathematics? After all, if you have an random string, you cannot extrapolate how it's going to continue from what it has been. — ssu

Yes. That's why natural evolution must harmonize Random Mutations with specific Selection Criteria. Working together, these complementary factors combine freedom for exploration of solutions with limitations on the combinations that will survive into the next generation. But who does the selecting? A math Demon? :smile:

I'm not a deist, but I don't see that the position that something created the universe any more or any less problematic than to say that the universe was uncaused. The deist needn't posit anything to do with intent or purpose either. He need only say the universe was caused by some cause. As to what caused the deistic god to come into being, the deist lays the mystery there, in the god, the thing that defies causation. — Hanover

At least you are open-minded on the question of origins. Some posters on TPF are self-labeled Absurdists*1. For them, asking about Origins & Causes is irrelevant to their meaningless life. But I suspect that most of us on this forum are not quite so apprehensive or pessimistic about open-ended philosophical questions. We humans seem to be innately curious*2 about the causal history prior to important observed events and processes : i.e. a Reason for Being. Rather than using contemporary humanoid gods to explain the existence & operation of our world, Plato and Aristotle postulated descriptive abstract labels such as First Cause and Prime Mover.

Darwin's theory of Evolution was probably intentionally left open-ended. But subsequent scientists have never ceased to push back the Chain of Change, seeking a priori. For example, 20th century astronomers attempted to turn-back the clock, with empirical evidence, to see when/where the first step in cosmic expansion/emergence occurred . This led to the Big Bang conjecture, which only incited additional questing for a more satisfactory beginning of the storyline than just "once upon a time".

Non-empirical hypothetical attempts to fill-in the before-big-bang gap include : a> quantum field fluctuations, b> eternally cycling Multiverse, c> Penrose cycling universe, d> exponential inflation of low entropy universe, e> zero-point energy of empty space, etc. All of these assume eternal existence of some unspecified or vague Creative Potential. And most are simply mechanical or accidental or Random, with no awareness or intention or Purpose (enabling Information). But whatever that cryptic world-causing Event/Entity*3*4 was, we know for sure that it has created creatures with both awareness and intention : us TPF posters, for example.

So, explaining where inquisitive Mind originated is a harder problem (mystery) than imagining where lumpish Matter came from (theory). Deists don't claim to know the answer to the unyielding "Hard Problem", but they typically infer that self-conscious animated Sentience could not emerge naturally from inert Matter or entropic Energy without some defining Information (formula). Hence, the reference to a generic Deus*5 : (1 = X). :smile:


*1. Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people into a conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

*2. What did Einstein say about curiosity?
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing".

*3. Deus otiosus : a creator God who has entirely withdrawn from governing the universe after creating it or is no longer involved in its daily operation

*4. Deus absconditus : hidden god

*5. Deism : immanent creative Force

X

But Laplace really missed the point that a forecast of the future can have an effect on the future, the subjectivity of this entity — ssu

I don't know that Laplace "missed the point". Perhaps, in order to keep his metaphor simple, he avoided getting into the open-ended question : "is foreknowledge deterministic?" :smile:

Why is this important? My view is that people think this is some kind of "problem" that needs to be fixed, averted or bypassed by some method. In fact it's a very important limitation itself, especially when you think just what something "random" should be. — ssu

I'm not sure what "this" refers to : a> foreknowledge = determinism? b> omniscience = omnipotence? c> randomness = incompleteness?

I'm also not sure of what the "problem" is that needs to be fixed : a> subjectivity = negative self-reference? b> randomness = indeterminism? c> negative self reference = unquestioned assumptions?

What does "this" have to do with Laplace's demon or the OP question about the equation of randomness and information? :nerd:

Would you agree that an omniscient entity is preternatural? — Gnomon
Omniscient?
You can turn that other way: anything part of the university cannot be omniscient. — ssu

Yes. That's why Laplace postulated a preternatural "demon" instead of a natural scientist, to keep track of all positions and motions in the world, from his objective observatory outside the universe.

Laplace had confidently responded to Napoleon's question, about a place for God in his theories of a deterministic world : "I have no need for that hypothesis". Yet, his argument for determinism used a god-substitute to make his point that natural laws leave no gaps for divine intervention. Ironically, the demonic entity would need to know all natural laws and all physical properties in order to predetermine the future development of the whole universe.

On the other hand, Maxwell's demon --- organizing only gas particles in a box, instead of an entire universe --- may not need to be omniscient, just uncannily knowledgeable and quick ; in order to violate the Second Law. In both cases of teleological determinism, the prophetic or organizing entity must be able to comprehend current complexity and future complications arising from lawful interactions of zillions of zooming particles. :cool:

PS___ A> Teleological Determinism is not the same as B> Theological Determinism. "A" requires only an unidentified philosophical (axiomatic) First Cause, while "B" specifies the creator deity of some historical religious myth.


Q: How is quantum mechanics an obstacle for the demon?
A: The demon’s job is to determine the future of the entire universe from initial conditions and the laws of physics and he’s got the brains to do it.
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/

Laplace's demon as a secular substitute for an omniscient God with perfect foreknowledge.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/laplaces_demon.html

Laplace's demon is omniscient and god-like: no mortal could ever hope to have the kind of perfect knowledge that Laplace alludes ...
https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/laplaces-demon/

The future is determined. This is known as scientific determinism. Laplace expanded this idea to the entire universe – if some creature knew everything's position and motion at one moment, then the laws of physics would give it complete knowledge of the future.
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/

By definition a metaphorical demon is not part of the real world, hence super-natural. It "interacts" only in hypothetical worlds. — Gnomon
I'm not sure that Laplace himself thought so. His idea was this kind of idea of extrapolation to the extreme, if an entity would have all the information at hand and all the laws of nature. That idea is false, because it doesn't take into account that any entity is part of the world. This is usually referred to being part of the problem that Quantum physics brings to us, but surely the problem is far more general. — ssu

Would you agree that an omniscient entity is preternatural? Non-omniscient human observers of quantum events cannot be as objective & well-informed as a metaphorical demon seeing the world from a privileged perspective. Hence, the Quantum Observer Effect. :smile:

Laplace's supernatural demon :
The demon must be an outside observer of the deterministic universe.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/104560/could-laplaces-demon-be-the-universe-itself

OFF-TOPIC : non-random evolution

Orthogenesis, on the other hand, is an evolutionary hypothesis suggesting that life has an inherent tendency to evolve in a unilinear direction towards some kind of predetermined goal or ideal form. This concept implies that evolution is guided by an internal or directional force rather than by random mutations and environmental pressures.

As I was developing my own personal philosophical worldview, I was prejudiced against Intelligent Design arguments by the mainstream scientific accusations, that it required faith in the God of Genesis. But I had rejected that ancient hypothesis when I reached the age of Reason. Instead, I was impressed by emerging developments in various threads of scientific understanding in the 21st century, pointing toward Teleology or Teleonomy in evolution.

Surprisingly, even Darwin, in the primitive 19th century, postulated something like natural laws that regulated biological change in order to "select" fitter organisms for reproduction*1. Unfortunately, he lacked knowledge of chemical genes to serve as biological memory from one generation to another. In our own time though --- using randomly generated mutations and electronic memory and software selection (regulations, algorithms) --- computerized engineering*2 has learned to emulate Nature in its law-like limitations on replication to design improved or novel forms of technology.

Anyway, the term "orthogenesis" was "obsolete" long before my time. So, I had to rediscover the concept of directional evolution on my own. Several threads of empirical and theoretical science were attesting to the complementary roles of disorderly Randomness and orderly Natural Laws. But they carefully avoided any words suggestive of Teleological progression. Consequently, I had to coin my own terms --- EnFormAction and Enformy --- to encapsulate the concept of a natural tendency toward increasing complexity & coordination in physical processes. Being inherent in nature, these "laws" required no occasional divine interventions.

Another such orthogenetic thread is the surprising effectiveness of Artificial Selection in designing complex products for specific functions*3. Also, to the chagrin of most scientists, Secular Cosmology arrived at the Big Bang model of our universe, ironically reminiscent of a creation event. From that First Event, the physical world began to expand & evolve, from near nothing to almost everything*4, along a "unilinear" Arrow of Time, as portrayed in the image below. Note the progressive Phases*5 that emerge along the way, despite the random fluctuations within the quantum foundation of physical reality. Another thread was the developments in Information Theory, which portray mathematical information as both a causal and organizing force in the physical universe*6.

I could present lots of circumstantial scientific evidence in this post, but none of it would carry the weight of scientific orthodoxy that Modern Physics has constructed as a wall of separation between Religious Dogma and Empirical "Truth". FWIW : my personal name for that "internal or directional force", powering & guiding evolution, is EnFormAction (causation + information), of which physical energy is the best known form. :smile:

*1. Laws of Evolution :
Correlation of Growth, as Darwin called it. This law states that the specialised forms of separate parts of an organic being are always bound up with certain forms of other parts that apparently have no connection with them. . . . .
"The gradually increasing perfection of the human hand, and the commensurate adaptation of the feet for erect gait, have undoubtedly, by virtue of such correlation, reacted on other parts of the organism."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272577459_Orthogenesis_and_Evolution

*2. Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve.
It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Note --- The software is structured by specific limitations (laws) on selection, while the intermediate forms produced are free to explore many unspecified niches (random). Note the irony of using ChatGPT to research the roots of its own evolution.

*4. Orthogenesis and Evolution :
Misinterpretations of orthogenesis describing it as mystical, teleological and linear are invalid. The orthogenetic aspect of evolution was recognized by Darwin as "laws of growth", but was neglected in favor of natural selection. Although an internal component to evolution is recognized by contemporary biologists, it is often considered to be secondary to natural selection. Where recognition is given to an internal tendency for evolution to proceed without requiring the action of natural selection, terms such as "constraints," "bias," and "potential" may imply orthogenesis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272577459_Orthogenesis_and_Evolution

*5. Teleological Emergence :
Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progession to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*6. The Guiding Force of Evolution :
Glattfelder reaches the same conclusion that other Information theorists have inferred : that we live in “a universe built of Information”. Again, that insight is in agreement with the Enformationism thesis. Likewise, he concludes that “overall, the universe appears to be guided by an invisible force driving it to ever higher levels of self-organized complexity”.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page19.html
Note --- Glattfelder is a "Theoretical physicist turned quant, turned complexity scientist, with a strong commitment to philosophy."


TELEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION :

It's not even predictable to the demon, if the demon is part of the world itself and has to interact with it. — ssu

By definition a metaphorical demon is not part of the real world, hence super-natural. It "interacts" only in hypothetical worlds. Hence, its predictions would be true only in the context of the metaphor. :joke:

What is "irrational infinity"? Infinite sided die seems like a sphere in 3D. — jgill

Sorry, I misspoke. According to the opinion below, Infinity is not a natural or real number, hence the rational vs irrational labels do not apply. Does that agree with your understanding?

Since infinity is un-real and non-dimensional, I assume the infinite die would be a spheroid in all non-real non-dimensions. :joke:

Infinity neither rational not irrational :
Infinity can be expressed as any fraction a0 where a is a natural number. Due to the denominator being zero, it is not rational. An irrational number is a real number that is not rational. As infinity does not exist in the real number system, it is not irrational.
https://www.quora.com/Is-infinity-a-rational-or-irrational-number

Does magic influence the world around us? Wow, what bizarre powers I wield! :cool: — jgill

I think the quote was merely making an analogy between Magic & Math --- not to be taken literally. However, perhaps you can apply your bizarre mathematical powers in a "possible world". :nerd:

What is the relationship between mathematics and reality?
Answer: When plugged into a possible world, mathematics gives us the tools to analyze the logically possible outcomes. Therefore, when a possible world that is expressed mathematically sufficiently aligns with reality, mathematics becomes effective at expressing relationships and outcomes.
https://brainly.ph/question/31124265

Those "Other Minds" may filter information about True Reality through their own private or communal prejudices. — Gnomon
Kastrup's 'dissociated alters'. — Wayfarer

Actually, the "other minds" I referred to are the perspectives of physically & mentally different people, who presumably have their own peculiar Solipsistic worldviews. Does Kastrup view his 'dissociated alters' as Other Minds in that sense?

My understanding of DID is more like demon possession. Jesus asked a demented man's possessors "what is your name?". The answer : “My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” {5 or 6 thousand soldiers}

Since I am an Introvert, a crowd of 100 alters, all babbling at the same time, would be confusing and unbearable. I would find single-self Solipsism more comfortable. In that case, other minds would be just a theory. But Wayfarer is a pretty good hypothesis. :joke:


Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds :
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.”
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

Dissociative Identity Disorder
“Alters” are your alternate personalities. Some people with DID have up to 100 alters. Alters tend to be very different from one another. The identities might have different genders, ethnicities, interests and ways of interacting with their environments.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

No problem, and thank you for the discussion. I will say that, in my view, the conflux of mathematics and magical thinking was formalized by Georg Cantor and has been nearly universally adopted in modern mathematics. If you believe that infinite sets cannot exist, then I am preaching to the choir. — keystone

Paradoxically, Empirical Science "facts" are believed to be true to the extent that they are reducible to mathematical ratios, or other incorporeal abstractions. According to some interpretations of irrational Infinity though, an infinite-sided die is not impossible, only supernatural, in the sense that you can imagine it, as an ideal concept --- e.g. a perfect multidimensional sphere --- but never reach-out and grasp it, in the real world. In what sense does that set of one "imaginary die" exist? :joke:

Math Magic :
Mathematics has a similar structure to certain conceptions of magic. It requires years of studying something entirely incorporeal, it seems to exist independent of the physical realm, it’s very powerful and has the ability to predict and influence the world around us, and it’s practitioners are BIZARRE.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-math-being-magical

Imaginary Dice :
A ten-sided die of Fibonacci, imaginary, and irrational numbers used to abolish intellectual property
https://rollthedice.online/en/cdice/imaginary-dice

↪Gnomon
I'll try and find time for that video, the first presenter, Beau Lotto, also figured in a video I attached to the Mind Created World OP. As for 'subjectivism', I almost accept that, with the crucial caveat that we are all subjects of similar kinds, and so the world occurs for each of us in similar ways. The subjective, so-called, is an ineliminable pole of reality, but there's no use looking for it, because it is what is doing the looking. — Wayfarer

I understand your qualification of acceptance regarding absolute Subjectivism*1, which would be essentially Solipsism. We moderns avoid the slippery slope of solipsism by comparing our private personal point-of-view with the publicized perspectives of others (e.g. TPF), in order to find commonalities between them. Modern Scientists tend to treat those common denominators*2 as-if they are Objective facts about True Reality*3.

As you suggested though, Subjectivism entails the Part looking at the Whole, from within the system being observed*4. That's why naive Solipsism must be viewed through a lens of reflective Skepticism*5. Those "Other Minds" may filter information about True Reality through their own private or communal prejudices. But that couldn't be true of Moi, could it? :cool:


*1. Subjectivism is the theory that perception (or consciousness) is reality, and that there is no underlying, true reality that exists independent of perception.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_subjectivism.html
Note --- Subjectivism = no absolute or objective Truth

*2. common denominator : a fact or quality that is shared by two or more people or groups.

*3. Empirical Science reveals the "Mind of God" without direct revelation :
Many early scientists were not only inspired to do science because they believed in God; they also thought that the natural world revealed the attributes and reality of God. . . . . Sir Isaac Newton argued that the delicate balance of forces at work in our solar system revealed “an intelligent and powerful Being.” . . . .
So how did we get from these great founders of modern science—with their conviction that science reveals the handiwork of God—to the modern New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger who think that science properly understood renders belief in God untenable?
https://stephencmeyer.org/2021/04/01/scientific-discoveries-reveal-the-mind-of-god-behind-the-universe-2/
Note --- The "handiwork" is self-existent? Hence no "hand" or "mind" needed?

*4. What is my invisible Milieu? :
Two young fish are asked by an older fish, “How's the water?” and one young fish turns to the other and says, “what the hell is water?”
https://humanitiesmoments.org/moment/this-is-water-banalities-of-living/
Milieu : environment ; ambience ; surroundings ; context ; background
Caveat : a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.

*5. Solipsism and Skepticism :
What is most distinctive about solipsism lies in what it calls for us to be skeptical of. Solipsism tends to involve skepticism about our knowledge of the world itself. It also involves a skepticism about the minds of others.
https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-solipsism/

I must say this is a cop-out somehow more ridiculous than the "God made the Big Bang then pissed off". — Lionino
Isn't this just the definition of deism? — Hanover

Not necessarily. One interpretation of Deism is that G*D is the universe*1. For example, G*D may exist eternally as a disembodied spirit, but occasionally transforms --- for no known reason --- into a physical material form. In that case, the Big Bang would be a birth event, and it took almost 14B years to mature into a world with self-conscious creatures. From that point onward, homo sapiens are god's way to "know thyself" (self-realization). Hence, our interactions with Nature constitute our relationship with G*D, and G*D's dealings with man. This is similar to some ancient notions of eternal formless deity (rational creative power : Brahma, Logos) and a temporal constructive demi-god (demiurge)*2*3.

However, the notion of gradual evolution (maturation) of the physical world is a rather recent cosmological & teleological concept. So the ancient god-models may not fit any of the Evolution-based options in the OP. But the Deist model emerged, along with modern empirical Science, in the 17th century, so 18th century Darwinian evolution should fit neatly into the general concept of a Nature God. Such an immanent deity does not "interfere" with natural processes, but is undergoing constant changes & transformations, just as the human body does during its allotted years. And we can assume that the Big Sigh, in about 10 trillion years, will mark the death of G*D's current incarnation. :smile:

PS___ I suppose a Deist could check None or All of the Above options.

*1. Deism's immanent deity :
Influence of Deism since the early 20th century There is thus no theological need to posit any special relationship between God and creation; rather, God is the universe and not a transcendent entity that created and subsequently governs it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism

*2. Plato’s Timaeus
The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos,) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/.
Note --- In the immanent nature-god model, Chaos would be the "pre-existent" formless eternal spirit that takes on the material form of the physical universe we know and love. Presumably, Chaos-god has no properties or qualities that we humans could know or love, other than abstract mathematical Logic.

*3. Hindu Creation Myth :
For Hindus the universe was created by Brahma, the creator who made the universe out of himself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv2fgwx/revision/7

Deism is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are how we come to know god. ___ Wikipedia

By the way, I've worked out how to embed Youtube shorts. If you follow the usual procedure and embed the raw url enclosed in the media tag: — Wayfarer

FWIW, I just embedded a whole (non-short) YouTube link in a post by clicking the "Share" button at the top of the video, and then right-click the "Share Link" that pops up, then select "copy link", next go to the forum and click the "You Tube" menu button and paste the link into the Insert Media box, then click "Go". Voila!

You Tube insert button :

The tree search algorithm in AlphaZero is 'nothing but' an algorithm for the allocation of resources to nodes in the search tree. This example is interesting from another point of view. At a node deep in the tree, AlphaZero uses a slimmed down version of itself, that is, one with less resources. You could say it uses a model of itself for planning. It may be modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself. Meta-management and self-modelling are not in themselves an explanation for very much. — GrahamJ

The self-referencing models sound reminiscent of Douglas Hofstadter's nested feedback loops espoused in his 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach, and elaborated in his 2007 book, I Am a Strange Loop. He suggested that one of those "slimmed-down models" might be the sentient core of what we experience as The Self and know as "I" or "me", the central "Planner".

Of course, big-C consciousness is not that simple. Current attempts at Artificial Intelligence are trying a variety of models : Language models, Neural Networks, Random Forest, Linear Regression, etc, etc. But self-modeling may be, not more "intelligent", in terms of processing power, but more human-like, in terms of self knowledge. :smile:

PS___I have no computer credentials, just a philosophical interest in Consciousness.

More broadly speaking, Einstein always stood for a realist attitude: that everything is determined by or subject to general laws. That's why he couldn't abide the implications of quantum physics - entanglement ('spooky action at a distance') and uncertainty being prime examples. — Wayfarer

Yes, it was that "Realist Attitude" that I was referring to in my post above : "Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance". I suppose the necessity for mixing subjective Metaphysics*1 with objective Quantum Physics is what Realists and Materialists most strenuously object to. By "chance" I refer, not to Luck or Fate, but to the free-wheeling randomness underlying the apparent mechanical determinism of macro reality.

Since I'm an amateur philosopher, not a professional scientist, the "contamination" (impurity) of Reality with a bit of Ideality is a feature of sub-atomic science, not a fault. The 17th century Enlightenment revolution prided itself on empirical Objectivity (reality) & mathematical Precision (certainty), as opposed to the Subjectivity (private revelation) & Assurance (dogmatic faith) of Christian theology. So, it's understandable that the attribution of lawlessness on the frontiers of civilized Reality would be unbearable to those trained in the law & order certainties of Classical Physics.

Since modern Science was the legitimate offspring of secular Greek philosophy, I'm not offended by the family resemblance manifesting in the margins of observable reality. Besides, even the reality of Reality is not as unambiguous as philosophical Realism portrays it. Due to my BothAnd*2 attitude toward Science & Philosophy, I am able to accommodate the Yin and the Yang opposition in a single complementary worldview. ☯︎


*1. Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that reality is what we perceive to be real, and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. One can also hold that it is consciousness rather than perception that is reality (idealism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

*2. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance. — Gnomon
That's metaphysics not science. — Wayfarer

Historically, Luck does play a role in scientific discoveries. But, I assume the pragmatic scientists don't like (metaphysical attitude) to depend on fickle Luck or capricious Serendipity.

Perhaps I should have limited my scientific attitude assessment to Einstein's "god doesn't play dice" remark. Could that general/universal assertion apply to both physics and metaphysics? :joke:

That "flavour of characteristics" is what I call ambiguity. Your use of this word conflicts with the idea you expressed above, about using well defined words with less baggage. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your whole argument for less ambiguity is based on an impractical desire for words to be absolutely concrete and defined. — Benj96

Although I assumed I knew what you were referring to in the OP, I also think has a good point. Perhaps most of the never-ending argumentation on this forum hinges on ambiguity in language. That's why Voltaire challenged, "If you want to converse with me, first define your terms". Verbal precision is difficult, but not "impractical".

It's true that the term "information" has spawned many new shades of meaning*1 since Shannon redefined it for his data engineering purposes. So, broadly referring to that inherent ambiguity as "the flavour of characteristics" does not pin down the particular Flavour of Information you are connecting to Randomness in the OP.

That's why my Information-based blog has attempted to define the term, as I use it in the blog posts. Unfortunately, some ambiguity is unavoidable, since it is a "shapeshifter" with many ordinary and exotic "flavours". The links below are just two of several attempts to clarify the various ways the term is now used in scientific & philosophical discussions. Terrence Deacon, author of Incomplete Nature, may have touched on MU's need for either/or information on both/and Information*2. :smile:


*1. The many faces of Information :
Colloquial info = Predicate; a noun: what it's about; the meaning; what is gained; the referent.
Shannon info = Quantified; a verb; what it does; gain vs loss; energy.
Boltzmann info = Randomized, absent, what was lost; entropy.
Deacon info = Referential; statistical; pointing to an absent future state.
Teleodynamic info = Semiotic; symbols; words that point to absent things; indicate future possibilities.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

*2. The Many Forms of Information :
He points out an unintended consequence of the statistical definition of Information, “By stripping the concept of its links to reference, meaning, and significance . . . The result is that the technical use of the term information is now roughly synonymous with difference, order, pattern, or the opposite of physical entropy. . . . This redefinition of the concept of information as a measure of order has, in effect, cemented the Cartesian cut into the foundation of physics. . . . implicitly support the claims of both eliminativism and panpsychism.”
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

What is Information? :
So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

The philosophical point about sub-atomic physics is mainly that it torpedoed the notion of an ultimately-existing material point-particle - 'the atom' of classical thought. C S Pierce, with his 'tychism', would have been perfectly comfortable with the uncertainty principle. But for those seeking the atom as a kind of bedrock foundation of reality - no joy. And it is amazingly difficult for a lot of people to cope with that.

By the way, I love Zizek's take on this. He says that when God was programming the universe, like when programmers create background scenery on a video game, he thought 'why should I bother programming the atom? People are too stupid to see down to that level'. He left it undetermined. But then we out-smarted God - we caught 'God with his pants down', so to speak. — Wayfarer

Yes. Pierce seemed to be comfortable with flexible fundamental Chance, working in opposition to mechanical cause/effect Necessity*1. Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance. Although some might prefer that nothing is certain. Anyway, that may be why Einstein thought Quantum theory was missing some hidden variables*2, that would cancel-out undetermined Randomness (essential uncertainty) and justify absolute Determinism (mathematical certainty).

In my own musing about the vagaries of Nature, and of moral freedom, I concluded that the Program for evolution must have included opposing YinYang forces of accidental Chance and intentional Destiny. Hence, all changes in the world can be either Positive or Negative, but average-out to Neutral (balanced). An ethical or religious reason for allowing exceptions to determinism, might be to include gaps in the chain of Destiny (necessity) for moral Choice (freedom). If so, we didn't "outsmart G*D", but belatedly discovered that, in making the rules (natural laws), S/He had made allowances for He/r not-so-stupid little gods to make free (unforced) choices, using the willpower of moral agency. :smile:


*1. Tychism (Greek: τύχη, lit. 'chance') is a thesis proposed by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce that holds that absolute chance, or indeterminism, is a real factor operative in the universe. This doctrine forms a central part of Peirce's comprehensive evolutionary cosmology. It may be considered both the direct opposite of Albert Einstein's oft quoted dictum that: "God does not play dice with the universe" and an early philosophical anticipation of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychism

*2. God Plays with loaded Dice :
Einstein described his "private opinion" of quantum physics in one of the 1945 letters by referencing a phrase that he had already made famous: "God does not play dice with the universe." In the letter, he wrote: "God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed."
https://www.livescience.com/65697-einstein-letters-quantum-physics.html

Paradox of FreeWill :
Consequently, Unwin concluded that Quantum Theory indicates that “At the bottom of everything, the smallest particles that exist are ruled by chance. Nothing is predestined.” I happen to agree. But I added a slight twist from my own musings on fatalism :“Or, everything is probably predestined”. Like him, I found reasons for assuming free-agency in the paradoxical probabilistic underpinnings of our seemingly certain cosmos. It’s true that science can rely on the same effect following the same cause, to an accuracy of several decimal points of probability – but not always to the point of certainty. So, it seems that any self-determination or freedom-from-causation we humans possess must be found in that tiny statistical gap between cause & effect. You might call that an “odds of the gaps” argument.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html

I don't believe all information in the universe is predictable because of heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Sure 99% of things can be non random but even if the fundamental 1% is that throws a huge spanner in the works — Benj96
I don't agree with the use of random here. Stochastic phenomena are just simply not precise (this is the word I was looking for) as an analysis. Commonly, (and I say erroneously) it is the precision upon which we judge whether something is random, or in the case of Heisenberg, uncertain. But to further judge a phenomena as undetermined is really troubling. — L'éléphant

Both of you may be correct. You're just focusing on different aspects of the Uncertainty problem. seems to be assuming that the world itself is fundamentally stochastic, while seems to be saying that the uncertainty is an observer problem. In truth, the answer to the "troubling" emotion caused by the random appearance of quantum phenomena may be to do as the quantum pioneers did : accept the inherent limitations of both observer and object.

As long as scientists were observing macro scale objects, their assumption of predictable mechanical determinism was pragmatic. But now, as we delve into levels of reality that the human mind and eye were not adapted to, for all practical scientific applications, non-classical sub-atomic physics is indeterminate & uncertain. Hence, for theoretical philosophical purposes we must accept the ambiguity of our knowledge (measurements) of reality at the fringes of technological precision and human decision. :nerd:



Is reality fundamentally random? :
The answer is that yes, as far as we can test, all quantum interactions that rely on a statistical or stochastic effect are random, as far as we can measure. The less helpful answer is that we don't know, because there is fundamentally no way to know if something is truly random just by its output.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/does-true-randomness-exist-quantum-physics-question.1497773/

Is anything in nature truly random? :
This is a problem about the philosophy of physics; it's sometimes known as Laplace's demon. Our current best theories of the fundamental laws of nature are quantum mechanical in nature. In this theory, the outcome of measurements is truly random; however, whether this implies that nature contains fundamental randomness depends on how you think the measurement problem should be solved.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/lls1tk/is_anything_in_nature_truly_random/

Laplace's Demon :
The future is determined. This is known as scientific determinism. Laplace expanded this idea to the entire universe – if some {omniscient} creature knew everything's position and motion at one moment, then the {mathematical} laws of physics would give it complete knowledge of the future. That creature is Laplace's demon. {my brackets}
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/
Note --- From the perspective of the all-knowing demon, the physical world is precisely determinate and predictable, but in the view of a mortal scientist, using imperfect machinery, the quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable, and perplexing. Which may be "troubling" for those who can't deal with ambiguity.

↪BC
I understand that you enjoy the taste of meat. Most people do. We evolved as omnivores. I am pleased that you see how going vegan would help the environment. It would also help people and the sentient organisms we consume. — Truth Seeker

Meat-eating humans were never a threat to the natural ecosystem, until modern science/technology began to work contrary to evolutionary selection : a> partly by allowing "unfit" humans to survive long enough to reproduce ; also b> artificially forcing nature to produce more human food than normal ; and c> resulting in an exponentially expanding human population that is overwhelming nature's ability to support life, on a globe of finite resources.

What I'm saying is that technology is the root of the food-supply problem, not meat-eating. A carnivorous lifestyle didn't un-balance the biosphere, as long as the vegetarians could out-breed the predators. One ideal solution to the world-food problem is for carnivores & omnivores (e.g. dogs, cats, and humans) to magically de-evolve into herbivores. That might be the Luddite answer to the (factual?) food insufficiency, and would incidentally end the Moral Evil (opinion) of wolves, lions, and humans killing innocent sentient creatures in order to survive.

However, a technological solution to the science-caused limited-resource problem would be to export meat-eating humans to another planet, such as Mars. Since natural evolution has not prepared the red planet for producing human foods, the technology of terra-forming must be developed by artificial evolution of a lifeless planet into a life-bearing world. Perhaps, by then, the technology for plant-based meat-analogues will be developed to the point where it solves both the insufficiency issue, and the moral problem --- "killing two birds with one stone" (sorry for the predatory metaphor).

At this point in time, the vegan/vegetarian approach seems to be focused on the moral side of what they view as an ethical/existential problem. And I doubt that they would be satisfied with a pragmatic technical solution to a moral problem, even though it might indirectly address the ethical evils. So, how can the rest of us decide which is an objective fact (insufficiency), and which is a subjective opinion (morality) ? :smile:



GRASS-EATING CARNIVORE

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason. We must assume a cause, so we must base theories on an existence that was caused rather than aiming at cause-less-ness and failing to describe it alongside many other inconsistencies concerning things happening without causes. — Barkon

I'm not sure what prompted you to make such an emphatic assertion. David Hume threw a monkey wrench into ancient confident causal assumptions with his astute observation that "correlation does not prove causation". {my emphasis} Nevertheless, a long chain of observed & recorded cause & effect links does point to the logical conclusion that certain kinds of temporal Priors (before state) are consistently followed by specific Posteriors (after effects). Otherwise, empirical science would not be as successful as it has been. And Bayesian Probability calculations allow us to calculate a reasonable expectation for a specified result.

Both sides of the contentious Causation controversy are personal opinions (beliefs) though, grounded on generalization from limited evidence. Causation was taken for granted by philosophers until the secularization of Science in the Enlightenment era, due to rejection of church authority on such questions. Yet, Modern Science is still based on the conditional presumption that every type of event that consistently follows another event was caused by the prior. Otherwise, our experience of the "arrow of time" would be misleading.

Even today, secular scientists typically assume continuity-of-causation all the way back to the beginning of Time : Big Bang theory. But at that point, natural knowable causation ends and supernatural conjectural causation must be inserted. Hence, their chain-of-causes abruptly ends at the beginning. So, any a priori causation or First Cause ceases to be a scientifically answerable question. Any speculations beyond that point are illegitimate, except for religious or philosophical purposes. I must assume that your OP was not a scientific statement, nor a religious doctrine, but merely philosophical in intent. :smile:

PS___FWIW, I just added a blog post in response to Arthur Schopenhauer's World As Will assertion that all change in the world results, not from a logical consecutive chain of causation, but from "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge" In other words, our world is not orderly, but chaotic; not rational, but random. I disagree with him, and agree with your assertion that we amateur philosophers "must assume a cause". Yet, some scientists & philosophers assume that they are exempt from that rational necessity, in cases that could be misconstrued as religious statements.


Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
Schopenhauer argued that the flawed world is not rationally organized. But, if so, how could reasoning beings evolve, and how could human Science gain control over the physical realm?
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

How do we decide what is fact and what is opinion? There are more than 8.1 billion humans on Earth and our conflicting ideologies, religions, worldviews and values divide us. I worry that we will destroy ourselves and all the other species with our conflicts. I think thatif we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

You seem to be describing the role of Philosophy in a world of divided opinions. Modern Science has found that the job is easier if you focus only on the objective material world. Today, Science works on the "easy" problems ("what is?" ; "how does?" ; Quanta), and leaves the "hard" problems ( "why?" ; "whence?" ; Qualia) for Philosophy to contend with. Both approaches are supposed to "decide" on the basic of observation and reason, but measures of success are easier to quantify when we objectify. And resolution of opinion-based conflicts are easier to find when we agree in advance to accept ambiguity in our answers. :worry:

. Perhaps, its more a research question as to whether there is some way to intuitively hold onto those poetic perennial forms of philosophy without succumbing to the same critiques from the 'shut up and calculate' crowd. — substantivalism

As I was developing my personal philosophical worldview, I didn't intentionally seek to cast hard science into softer poetic forms. But Quantum Physics --- "the most mathematically accurate theory in the history of science" --- is also the most counter-intuitive and irrational. So, the use of metaphors & analogies seems to be mandatory. But such mushy terminology --- wave-particle is an actor playing two roles --- goes against the grain of classical mechanical physics. The simple cause-effect relationship is complicated by inserting a conscious mind into the event : cause-observation-effect (two slit experiments). Even the math of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle includes confounding infinities. Consequently, I was left with no choice, but to follow the lead of the Copenhagen compromise between objectivity and subjectivity. Hence, to combine physics with metaphysics. :cool:

However, that did not stop the mechanistic theories of Classical physics of accepting such an entity, as that book by Milič Čapek supports, and that there are more concepts that such a view of the world accepted than is usually let on. — substantivalism

I assume the "entity" you refer to is something like an entangled wave-particle, which is neither here nor there, but everywhere. That's literally non-sense, but physicists eventually learned to "accept" such weirdness in exchange for uncanny technologies like quantum tunneling, that make your cell phone work wonders. I'm not familiar with Čapek, but Bergson and Whitehead were influential in the formation of my information-based worldview. :nerd:

Perhaps its not just obscure philosophy that needs to do some better PR but also modern physics as well — substantivalism

Former professional physicist, now video blogger, Sabine Hossenfelder agrees with that assessment in her critiques of What's Wrong With Modern Physics : "What can we learn from this? Well, one thing we learn is that if you rely on beauty you may get lucky. Sometimes it works." :smile:


HOSSENFELDER at 28 : did she rely on beauty?

Do you think that modern physics, or even philosophy in general, has gone off the rails with regards to non-visualized poetry/metaphor and abstract obsessions? — substantivalism

Perhaps 17th century "classical" physics did initiate a clean break from its predecessor --- Christian theology --- by insisting on "hard" (orthodox ; on the rails) science, free from metaphorical language and metaphysical implications. But then, 20th century physics took a turn back toward softer philosophical methods, which use symbols & analogies to describe things & systems that are too complex, abstract, or entangled for the simplifying human mind to deal with. The early Quantum physicists, in particular, were perplexed by the "weirdness" of their sub-atomic physics experimental results.

So, they turned to philosophical metaphysics and Eastern religious tropes for poetic words*1 (quantum contextuality) to describe the non-particular & non-mechanical behaviors of energy & matter within the invisible foundations of reality. That "off the rails" departure from mechanical explanations was quickly labeled "quantum mysticism", and "anti-science". But, that was just a brief phase in the history of modern physics, as its hard technology products became profitable, and the mushy poetry was devalued. Consequently, hard-nosed scientists were taught to ignore the metaphorical mysteries and "just calculate".

Are you longing for a return to a softer kind of science, or maybe a more poetic brand of philosophy*2? Your screename, "Substantivalism"*3, harks back to the ancient roots of modern science in debates about the substance of reality. Greek Atomism was a good start toward a mechanistic worldview, except that it postulated no empty space for change, because nothingness was taboo. Yet, mechanism requires both hard stuff (substance) and soft space (relation) to produce a dynamic material & physical world that won't stand still for us to examine it.

The Mechanical imagery of ancient natural philosophy helped to simplify the complexities & mysteries of reality. But it omitted a role for the observer & manipulator of squirrely squirming quantum systems. Nonetheless, that voided vacancy was discovered by the quantum "mystics" as they groped in the spooky darkness of the unseen realm, where causation seemed to propagate its relationships instantly across empty space..

If that's what this thread is all about, you will find some sympathetic ears, but be prepared for accusations of preaching mystical "obsessions" and metaphysical woo-woo. :smile:



*1. Poetry as a Quantum Phenomenon :
Another quantum effect one sees in poetry is what’s called quantum contextuality. In terms of language, this simply means that a word’s meaning changes depending on the words that it’s entangled with.
https://northamericanreview.org/open-space/8263-2

*2. Metaphors We Live By is a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published in 1980. The book suggests metaphor is a tool that enables people to use what they know about their direct physical and social experiences to understand more abstract things like work, time, mental activity and feelings. ___Wikipedia

*3. Substantivalism vs Relationalism
About Space in Classical Physics
https://shamik.net/papers/dasgupta%20substantivalism%20vs%20relationalism.pdf

This differs markedly from religions like Buddhism, where practice, experience, and a phenomenological approach to understanding mind and reality are central, rather than the adherence to orthodox beliefs. — Wayfarer

I've heard it said that Zen Buddhism is a "practice" not a religion. But it is a "practice" with specific beliefs and group requirements or expectations. Years ago, at a hippie-like alternative church deep in the US "bible belt", I experimented with Alpha-Theta meditation, which omitted the associated Hindu/Buddhist beliefs, and focused solely on reaching a "deep, meditative, hypnotic-like state". An EEG machine was used to verify the brain-wave status during meditation.

Was that too quick & technical to qualify as a "practice"? Anyway, I enjoyed the waking-sleep relaxation, but never achieved any remarkable insights or feelings. I guess I didn't practice enough, but EEG readings are not the kind of feedback that would keep me coming back. Repetitive Practice requires emotional commitment to some personal goal, and belief that the goal is achievable. Probably, my intellectual curiosity was not sufficient for devoting my life to the practice of "wasting time". :smile:


Buddhism is variously understood as a religion, a philosophy, or a set of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of the Buddha,
https://tricycle.org/beginners/

"As the old joke goes, a tourist asked a New Yorker how do you get to Carnegie Hall. And the answer was: Practice! Practice! Practice!"

Buddhist Metaphysics :
Although mainstream Buddhism is a “form of mystical idealism”, the author says that it’s actually “a heady mixture of four quite distinct and contrasting metaphysical systems” : Common-sense Realism ; Theistic Spirituality ; Phenomenalism ; and Mystical Idealism.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page21.html

Why Buddhism is Enlightening :
This book is not recommending conversion to one of the various Asian religions that evolved from the Buddha’s teachings. Instead, he sees secular Meditation as a viable technology for taking command of our lives, and for avoiding or alleviating the psychological suffering — mostly Freudian neuroses — that plague many people today.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page51.html

How To Practice Stoicism :
“A Stoic is someone who transforms fear into prudence, pain into transformation, mistakes into initiation, and desire into undertaking.” — N.N.Taleb
https://mindfulstoic.net/how-to-practice-stoicism-an-introduction-12-stoic-practices/
Note --- Although it's closer to my own Western worldview, I don't consciously practice Stoicism. Perhaps because I'm not aware of any personal neuroses that need to be "transformed" into more positive behaviors.

That is how it is nearly always (mis)interpreted. Your interpreting it as 'nothing as opposed to something', or the 'cosmic void'. It's not that, but don't feel as though you're alone in seeing it that way, it is an almost universal misunderstanding. — Wayfarer

Apparently, the Buddha's "emptiness" is supposed to be taken metaphorically instead of literally. The Bhikkhu quote describes it as a "mode of perception", which I would interpret as an attitude of "open-mindedness". And which, as described in the link below, should be essential for the practice of philosophy. But religious Faith would seem to be the antithesis : to hold stubbornly to "one's favored beliefs". Long ago, I gave-up my childhood faith, and have not found any ready-made off the shelf belief system to replace it.

That's why, over many years, I have been reviewing a variety of alternative religious, scientific, & philosophical beliefs, as I gradually construct a customized bespoke physical/metaphysical worldview of my own. I try to keep an open mind*1, but retain the truth-filter of skepticism*2 to weed-out any true-believer BS. Since I have never experienced anything Mystical or Magical, I am not predisposed to accept paranormal or transcendental beliefs that require a prejudicial "eye of faith".

The C.S. Lewis quote in my post above noted that "His faith changed his direction from 'self-scrutiny' {introspection?} to 'self-forgetfulness' {dissociation?}". {my brackets} Hence, as an adult he was transformed from dour Irish Anglican upbringing, to death-dispirited Atheist, to liberal non-denominational Theist. Does that sound like a case of "emptiness" or "open-mindedness" or "no self" to you? Obviously, he created a new personal worldview, but did his mind create a new world, in the sense of the OP? :smile:


*1. Open-mindedness is the willingness to search actively for evidence against one's favored beliefs, plans, or goals, and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available.
https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/newsletters/authentichappinesscoaching/open-mindedness

*2. Skepticism is derived from the word skepsis, which means inquiry, examination, or investigation of a perception. More specifically, scientific skepticism refers to a method of systematic doubt used to objectively examine a premise, usually on the basis of empirical evidence, wherever possible. It is about cultivating critical habits of mind to weigh evidence. Scientific skepticism is a balance between being open to new ideas and being skeptical of claims that lack supporting evidence.
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/skepticism-not-cynicism-for-a-world-dependent-on-intellectual-inquirynbsp

Emptiness, the most misunderstood word in Buddhism?
The first meaning of emptiness is called "emptiness of essence," which means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves." The second is called "emptiness in the context of Buddha Nature," which sees emptiness as endowed with qualities of awakened mind like wisdom, bliss, compassion,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/emptiness-most-misunderstood-word-in-buddhism_b_2769189

The first footnote in the Medium version of the essay refers to Kant, as does the first quotation from the Charles Pinter book Mind and the Cosmic Order, which I understand you're familiar with. I would hope overall not to stray too far out of the bounds set by Kant. — Wayfarer

I've never attempted to read Kant's "difficult" works, so I only know the Wikipedia version. But I have read Pinter's Mind and the Cosmic Order. Both of those explanations of the Mind/World relationship are easier for me to identify-with than the Hindu/Buddhist texts. In my blog book review*1, I found Pinter's western-oriented analysis of the Real vs Ideal question to be mostly compatible with my own.

For example, in order to make sense of the Buddha's "śūnyatā", I would have to picture its "emptiness" in terms of the void or nothingness (absence of matter) that presumably preceded the Big Bang of modern Western cosmology. In my own worldview, I imagine the logically necessary First Cause as existing eternally in an un-real im-material meta-physical state of Nothingness, that we westerners call "Potential". Perhaps, when my Ego is "extinguished" in death/nirvana, my self/soul will return to the void/sunya from whence it came. It's just speculation, but, for a Materialist, even that secularized de-personalized implication of matterless existence might be as unrealistic as any religious heaven.

The Nothing vs Something notion of Shunyata is itself a dualism. But then, the only way to eliminate Dualism in philosophy is to avoid rational analysis of whole systems into more digestible parts : e.g. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā vs 'Root Verses on the Middle Way'. For most of us, the first step toward understanding is to differentiate This-from-That, or Real-from-Ideal. Besides, without analytical Reason, we would have nothing to talk about, and this forum would have to communicate directly and wordlessly via mind-reading. :smile:


*1. Creative Mind and Cosmic Order :
The traditional opposing philosophical positions on the Mind vs Matter controversy are Idealism & Realism. But Pinter offers a sort of middle position that is similar in some ways to my own worldview of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend). ___Gnomon
Notice the duality you introduce between model and world — Wayfarer

The Gnomon quote is how I understand the phrase "a mind-created world". But the Wayfarer quote seems to imply that my individual ego-driven Soul/Self/Mind does create, not a separate simplistic subjective model-world, but the actual all-inclusive complex objective world of physical bodies and metaphysical minds, from the whole cloth of unlimited imagination. That would be a good trick for a god {image below}, but could a very limited mind like mine pull it off? The duality is a distinction between one man's imagination, and the one real world of space-time, or perhaps a Cosmic Mind's Maya illusion.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism*1 seems to imply an unbridgeable (dualistic) gulf between imperfect & incomplete (i.e. evolving) physical Reality, and a perfect & unchanging metaphysical Platonic Ideality. The human ego produces an imaginary (ideal) world model, limited in scope & detail by our inborn or learned assumptions and associations*2. At least, that's how I interpret his notion of a transcendent ideal world*1. Other than divine magic, does your concept of a Mind-Created World agree with Kant, or a more radical sense of "created"? :smile:

PS___The NETFLIX movie Freud's Last Session, provides a fictional encounter between Sigmund Freud, a famous atheist, and C.S. Lewis, a former atheist who converted to a personal (non-Catholic) faith in "Mere Christianity"*3. Their gentlemanly give & take discussion reminded me of our dialogues, even though I am not an angry Atheist, and you are not a non-denominational Christian.


*1. Kant's Mind-Created World :
Kant's transcendental conditions of knowledge portray the mind not as creating the physical world, but as necessarily structuring our knowledge of objects with a set of unconscious assumptions; yet our pre-conscious (pre-mental) encounter with an assumed spatio-temporal, causal nexus is entirely physical.
https://philarchive.org/archive/PALKPS-4
Note --- Are those "unconscious assumptions" the prejudices you see in my dualistic worldview?
The "causal nexus" may be another term for my own EnFormAction hypothesis.

*2. Kant’s Perspectival Solution to the Mind-Body Problem :
Kant’s Critical philosophy solves Descartes’ mind-body problem, replacing the dual-
ism of the “physical influx” theory he defended in his early career. Kant’s solution, like
all Critical theories, is “perspectival,” acknowledging deep truth in both opposing
extremes. Minds are not separate from bodies, but a manifestation of them, each
viewed from a different perspective. Kant’s transcendental conditions of knowledge
portray the mind not as creating the physical world, but as necessarily structuring our
knowledge of objects with a set of unconscious assumptions; yet our pre-conscious
(pre-mental) encounter with an assumed spatio-temporal, causal nexus is entirely
physical. Hence, today’s “eliminative materialism” and “folk psychology” are both
ways of considering this age-old issue, neither being an exclusive explanation. A
Kantian solution to this version of the mind-body problem is: eliminative materialism
is good science; but only folk psychologists can consistently be eliminative material-
ists. Indeed, the mind-body problem exemplifies a feature of all cultural situations:
dialogue between opposing perspectives is required for understanding as such
to arise.
https://philarchive.org/archive/PALKPS-4
Note --- The "perspectival" solution to opposing worldviews may be similar to my own BothAnd methodology.

*3. The Most Reluctant Convert :
His faith changed his direction from “self-scrutiny” to “self-forgetfulness.”
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/the-most-reluctant-convert/
Note --- Could "self-forgetfulness" be a form of non-self egolessness?


Vishnu Dreaming Worlds into Existence

None of which has much to do with blind faith, has it? — Wayfarer

The "blind faith" was snuck into the book only in the final chapter, after many chapters of "rational argumentation" against commonsense Materialism, and even Kingsley's version of Idealism. So, how am I to interpret "transcending reason through reason" except as a "rational" choice to close the eyes to "objective" Reality, and take a leap of faith into extrasensory subjective Ideality*1? :smile:

*1. Eyes of Faith, not Reason :
He has said "He who has eyes to see, let him see, and he who has ears to hear, let him hear." This whole concept of the Lord coming to make someone blind or giving sight to those who cannot see is hard to visualize (no pun intended).
https://www.dneoca.org/articles/eyestosee0794.html

Quote from Science Ideated : "The point here, however, isn’t that reality is constituted by personal, egoic beliefs; the foundational beliefs in question aren’t accessible through introspection; they underly not only a person, not only a species, not only all living beings, but everything. They aren’t our beliefs, but the beliefs that bring us into being in the first place". — Wayfarer

I'm aware that Kastrup's language could be "misinterpreted" by those who are alien to egoless Eastern maya-based*2 worldviews. But my own personal experience, with mostly Western religions, taught me to be on-guard against those who use Maya/illusion concepts to undermine confidence in my personal reasoning abilities. Christianity uses the image of deceiving Satan for the same effect : to make believers dependent on "seers" & "prophets" for their knowledge of paradoxical Truth. So, my problem is not prejudice against Kastrup's idiosyncratic Idealism, but of the necessity for making his esoteric ideas fit into my own personally experienced model of reality, that has outgrown some Western religious beliefs, by means of philosophical reasoning. Even as I try to keep an open mind to unfamilar ideas, I remain unable to access those hearsay "foundational beliefs . . . . underlying everything". :cool:

*2.What does Maya mean spiritually?
Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy

'egological'. . . . . Rather it pertains to the way the ego constitutes experience of the objective world into a coherent, subjective stream of consciousness related to the ego or self — Wayfarer

Yes. I am aware that my "ego's role" in construing the world is an obstacle to the Buddhist goal of "non self" (i.e. perfect objectivity or God's view of the world). I suppose, if "god" wanted us mortals to "become like God" (Genesis 3:5), then s/he wouldn't allow Satan/serpent/Maya to deceive us with the apple of Egoism. Does it make sense to sacrifice the Self (soul) in service to an anonymous/imaginary Cosmic Concept? To me --- in view of recorded human history of religious warfare*3 --- it seems like a choice between self-control and other-control. {image below} :gasp:

*3. Divine Dharma & Karma Yoga :
To set the stage, the Bhagavad Gita begins with Arjuna and his family about to go to war with one another. Not wanting to shed his families' blood, Arjuna refuses to fight. Ironically, this is where the god Krishna steps in and tries to convince Arjuna it is his duty to kill his rebellious kinsmen.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-bhagavad-gitas-story-of-arjuna-krishna-the-three-paths-to-salvation.html

it encourages us to go beyond the egological constitution of internal and external objects which `foolish, ordinary people’ habitually `seize’ upon in their everyday standpoint. — Wayfarer

"Everyday standpoint = common sense?? If so, I suppose I am one of those "foolish ordinary people" who put their trust in personal reasoning, in order to defend against exhortations to take some sacred ideas on ego-blinded faith*4. Most doctrinal religions encourage their "ordinary people" to submerge their egos into a faith community, a single-minded union of believers : "being in full accord and of one mind" (Philippians 2:2). I'm OK with unbiased-universal-perspective as a philosophical concept, but not OK with religious exhortation to extinguish the ego. I'm wary of becoming a remote-controlled robot, subject to centralized orders from high command {image below]. Do Islamic terrorists submerge their egos, and sacrifice their bodies, in order to serve their omnipresent-but-invisible Allah? :chin:

*4. Eye of Faith reveals unseeable Allah :
"Well, HE is invisible for those who do not believe in HIS existence."
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Allah-is-invisible-If-yes-then-why-did-he-ask-the-polytheists-to-show-their-Gods-knowing-that-Gods-are-invisible-How-can-non-Muslims-subscribe-to-Islam-when-its-God-say-such-meaningless-things-Or-is

transcend the mentality which invests the objective domain with an inherent reality which it doesn't possess — Wayfarer

My hybrid matter/mind-based philosophical worldview accepts the subjectivity of its own "reality" model. But my BothAnd bridge-between-worldviews allows me to imagine that hypothetical divine objective perspective, even as --- in the absence of divine revelation --- I make-do with my innate subjective view of the outside world. I can accept the natural world of the senses as the "inherent reality", while labeling the metaphysical model of that world as an as-if ivory-tower artificial reality : i.e. Ideality. One "reality" has physical Properties (possessions), while the other has metaphysical Qualities (attributes). Like Infinity, we can aspire to perfect Objectivity, but our attempts, on an asymptotic curve, miss the ultimate goal :nerd:

"egoless mechanical robot/slaves" would indeed be an unfair assessment. Would it be wise for you to engage with Sufism? Probably not, given your background. — Wayfarer

How would you fairly assess the ego-less faith of Islamic terrorists (as one example among many of faith-motivated extremists)? Would it be more appropriate for me to "engage" with a Christian Mysticism that is closer to my own background? The peaceful Quakers (or Islamic Sufis), for example. They "believe that all people are capable of directly experiencing the divine nature of the universe". But they don't seem to be violent or robotic to me. Perhaps because their individualized experiences of divinity are not easily translated into centralized directives. "Spirit led" is a nice theory, but dogmaless Ego interpretations tend to keep them quiescent, instead of aggressive, in practice. Their unorthodox religions were persecuted in the early years, but their institutional passivity eventually allowed them to co-exist with non-mystical Christians, who had more threatening fish to fry. Do these egoless exceptions to the ego-driven rule fit into your Mind-Created World picture? Would I be advised to join them in their direct access to Divine Mind? :chin:

The fact that you can only interpret any of this as 'religious dogma' seems to me, and pardon me for saying, a consequence of the views you bring to it. — Wayfarer

Again, you imply implacable prejudice against doctrinal religion due to its restraints on ego-serving Reason. It's true that my religious upbringing involved minimal mystical elements, but it also had no official creed, so each believer was expected to interpret difficulties in the received scriptures according to his own "reasoning". Like the Quakers, it had few doctrinal rules, apart from the admittedly ambiguous New Testament record of early Christian beliefs. Hence, we didn't have any creedal or papal justification for burning infidels at the stake.

In retrospect, it seemed almost like non-dogmatic Buddhism*5, due to its "rational, individualistic, and democratic “spirituality”. So, my individualistic interpretations ("views") of Christian traditions were tolerated, as long as I didn't make an issue of it. My label of "religious dogma" was intended only in the sense that most sects have a few basic rules (doctrines) that establish their position in the plethora of religious interpretations "views" of their belief community. I have no animus against practical rules (doctrines) for governing religious communities. I do, however, have a skeptical philosophical attitude toward unquestioning Blind Faith as a condition of membership. :smile:

*5. Buddhist Doctrine (dogma) :
Buddhists believe that the human life is one of suffering, and that meditation, spiritual and physical labor, and good behavior are the ways to achieve enlightenment, or nirvana.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/buddhism/
Note --- Compare Zen Calvinism

EGOLESS CENTRALLY-CONTROLLED ROBOT ARMY OF GOD

...submissive behavior in the presence of great power.......I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever......I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty.... — Gnomon
What, in this passage, suggests something like that? — Wayfarer

I was not referring to "this passage" but to "the deeply religious attitude" in general. I don't think Kastrup is promoting any particular traditional religion in his books, but merely the philosophical worldview of Analytical Idealism. However, his last chapter uses quotes from Peter Kingsley to illustrate some of the concepts he's trying to convey in order to "break down" our rational defenses. Kingsley is described as a Sufi mystic, which emerged from within the rule-bound Islamic religious traditions. The primary belief of Sufism is that "unification with Allah" is the most important goal of an individual's life. That sounds like extremely "submissive" behavior to me, turning egoistic self-conscious rational humans into egoless mechanical robot/slaves. Is that an unfair assessment? Would I be wise to transform into a "whirling dervish"? Would I then "know the mind of God"?

Kastrup's final chapter is focused primarily on breaking down the rational defenses of the self-centered Western mind. And it uses some of the same mind-bending "tricks" that Roman Catholic theology employs to make counter-intuitive notions, like a unitary/triune deity, seem plausible to the mortal mind ; as-if viewed from a higher perspective. He deprecates Greek Logic & reasoning in favor of what he calls "true logic" --- what I might call "religious reasoning". But the path to that divine perspective seems to require --- like all "true" religions --- a leap of blind faith : "true logic must come disguised as reason ; it must entail embracing the illusion fully". He seems to be suggesting that we voluntarily blind our rational minds in order to allow a divine "illusion" to dispel a mundane mirage. As Kastrup puts it, with no sign of irony : "transcending reason through reason".

Kastrup says that "it's critical that we first bring down our defenses . . . . because the intellect is the bouncer of the heart". Yes, but the skeptical intellect is also the shield against BS. My early religious training also insisted on lowering our shields in order to allow a higher Truth to penetrate the hardened heart. Once our intellectual defenses are down, we are prepared to accept whatever irrational religious doctrine is poured into our open un-defended heads. And that is why, as I reached the "age of reason", I chose to keep my mind open, but "not so open that your brains fall out".

In the sub-chapter labeled Beyond Idealism, he describes the Western worldview as a "hoax". In place of that fake-reality, he describes the True Reality of oneness with God-Mind : "everything is one, whole, motionless". Ironically, Einstein posited a similar mathematical Singularity-universe in his eternal timeless placeless "Block Universe" thought experiment ; perhaps to illustrate the concept of Relativity by contrast to Absoluteness. As an as-if metaphor, he didn't expect us to take it as a physical Reality, but only as metaphysical Ideality --- something to think about, not to lay hands on. Kastrup goes on to assert that "it is true that reality is constructed out of belief". But that's all the more reason we should be very careful about what we believe.

He goes on to explain that, from the perspective of Idealism, "the only way for things to feel real is if consciousness tricks itself into believing that its own imagination is an external phenomenon. Consciousness's prime directive is to trick itself, for if it doesn't, nothing is left but a void". So, he seems to be saying that we must learn to distrust our own senses, our only physical contact with external reality, in order to get in touch with what Kant called the unknowable ding an sich. I suppose that's the essence of pure Idealism. Which may be why my own worldview is an impure amalgamation of pragmatic Realism and intellectual Idealism. Can I have my Ideality and eat the cake too? :wink:

Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? — Gnomon
Only when we talk about it. ‘The way that can be named is not the real way’. — Wayfarer

Although my personal philosophical worldview assumes, as an unprovable axiom, an original universal First Cause of some kind, I don't go so far as to label that unknown Source as "The Absolute". And I am not aware of any personal benefit from Worshiping, or attempting to "unite" with that cosmic principle. I guess that's because I am lacking the political & religious gene for submissive behavior in the presence of great power. For me, The Unknown is intellectually compelling (a mystery to be solved), but not emotionally attractive (a mystical force to be worshiped or appropriated).

I am in sympathy with highbrow & holistic Eastern philosophy in general, but not with its popular & emotional religious forms. I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever. So, my dispassionate demeanor is more appropriate for Stoicism than for Mysticism. I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty. So popular rule-based Religion, and less popular euphoria-based Spiritualism, do not appeal to me. Also, mystical & arcane Kabbalah-type "secret wisdom" is not the powerful lure for me that it is for some seekers. Is there any hope for me, as an aspirant of mundane Socratic wisdom? Do I need to be "transformed" in order to escape the modern/western hell-bound herd? :nerd:

PS___Other than an antagonistic attitude toward human Reason, mystical religious practices seem to have little in common. Some use deep awareness meditation, some hallucinogenic drugs, and some physical Yoga or whirling dances to achieve union with the Divine. I am at a loss in all of those avenues.

I don't know. The fact you think it's a religious argument says something. I've gotten hold of the ebook and will peruse it. — Wayfarer

Sorry, if I came on a bit strong in that previous post. All through Kastrup's book, I was nodding in agreement, since it sounded like rational philosophical arguments against non-idealist worldviews. But, in the last chapter, his arguments began to sound irrational and polemical. Kastrup himself introduced "cunning" religious arguments, intended to "undermine reason" and to "trick, enchant or persuade" unbelievers. That's the kind of argumentation that I identify with religious and political campaigns. However, I didn't have to characterize the chapter as a "religious argument", because Kastrup did it for me : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude".

In that final chapter, Kastrup seems to be advocating, not just philosophical Idealism, but also religious mysticism. He was more specific about his ineffable experience of "the Other" in a previous book : The Idea of the World. As a child, my own religious experience was mostly toward the passionless rational end of the spectrum. So, I have always looked at mysticism as an outsider. I once attended a "holy roller" service with my parents, and experienced (objectively) individuals who would stand up, gesticulate, and speak in tongues (not human dialects, but angel language). That was about as close to mysticism as I came, during my impressionable years.

Years later, curiosity motivated me to deliberately investigate the "other side" of religion. I learned a lot from Evelyn Underhill's (1911) Mysticism : The Development of Humankind's Spiritual Consciousness. I suppose her background was Catholic theology, because she seemed highly educated and fluent in Latin. Like Kastrup, she was also skeptical of fake spiritualism : "Mysticism has been misunderstood . . . . has been claimed as an excuse for every kind of occultism, for dilute transcendentalism, religious or aesthetic sentimentality, and bad metaphysics." In her first chapter, she discusses various alternative worldviews. After dismissing Realism/Materialism, she says "the second great conception of being --- Idealism --- has arrived by a process of elimination at a tentative answer to this question." The question was "whence comes the persistent instinct which --- receiving no encouragement from sense experience --- apprehends and desires this unknown unity, this all-inclusive Absolute, as the only possible satisfaction of its thirst for truth."

Lacking a talent for ecstasy, I have attempted to quench my own thirst for truth by using Western philosophical methods. Which Kastrup is also very familiar with, but uses its own logic to "undermine" its rational conclusions. Throughout the years, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions have used rational arguments to justify their institutional power over the hearts & minds of men. So, they have attempted to suppress the mystical "instinct" of those who prefer to go directly to the source of all authority : the "absolute". Hence, esoteric religious trends have always been marginalized by the mainstream institutions. Yet, I have unintentionally minoritized myself, by straying from the Doctrinal mainstream, without reaching the opposite shore of Spiritualism.

Although accuses me of being a New Age mystic,my personal non-religious philosophical worldview is a sort of blend of Realism & Idealism, with no mystical aspects. I assume that there is a physical world out there sending signals to my senses. But I am aware that my internal model of that world is a figment of my own imagination and reason. Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? :cool:

Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. — Wayfarer

That's a plausible hypothesis, and somewhat similar to my own emerging worldview, both of which are unprovable in any objective sense, and moot for any except philosophical purposes. My personal philosophical thesis is "grounded" mostly on modern scientific discoveries, instead of traditional/cultural religious doctrines. It concludes that the "ground" of physical existence is Causal, not Material, nor Experiential. As far as we can tell, 99.999% of the universe, until recently, lacked subjective Experience. Instead, most inter-communication involved exchanges of Energy, without personal meaning. Parallel to my own critique of Materialism, I can agree with Kastrup in his skeptical analysis of Panpsychism : it "implies universal consciousness, and fails to explain our own personal subjectivities". My own view is closer to Platonic Idealism, which postulated an eternal source of Abstract Forms with the Potential for both embodied Material things and Mental ideas. But he avoided anthro-morphing that unknown & unknowable abyss of Possibility, along with the myriad religious rules that arise from human interpretations of divine Will.

I too have toyed with the notion of a "Universal Mind". But, lacking direct revelation, I don't know if that Form Source is aware of anything in our world. What human science tells us is that Sentience eventually emerged, after eons of insentience. For all I know, the Source could be more like a mindless Multiverse with eternal Causal/Creative powers. Everything my biblical source-of-information told me about the Eternal Universal Deity of the Hebrews came from human philosopher/prophets, using their observation & imagination to make sense of the ever-changing material world with spooky invisible causal forces labeled "spirits". Today, we call those forces "energy", but its only scientific property is causation of material change. Unlike the biblical Holy Spirit, Energy is assumed to be random and insentient. And, except for a historical tendency toward complexity & consciousness, I have no evidence to prove otherwise.

I can understand Kastrup's analogy of "dissociated alters", but I find that abstract notion difficult to convert into an empirical "fact" of reality. Likewise, I am probably better informed than most westerners about eastern philosophy, but I'm not persuaded that the religions based on that grounding are any closer to ultimate Truth than the Judeo-Christian religions ; which are splitting like atoms into nit-picking sub-atomic interpretations of interpretations of what is and what must be. Therefore, I must remain agnostic about philosophical Universals (e.g. Divine Deities) rationalized from a few specific bits of information. :nerd:

But I would venture that the influence of dogmatic religion in your earlier life has prejudiced you against these ideas, so that you tend to view them through those spectacles. — Wayfarer

Due to years of reflection on my own back-to-the-bible decentralized priestless written-scripture-based Protestant religion, I can admit to being post-judiced against some of its essential ideas, ironically based on faith in the Roman Catholic Bible, but not its pope & priests. In Science Ideated, I was going along with Kastrup's "cunning" arguments against competing philosophical & religious belief systems. But then, the last chapter, in defense of Analytical Idealism, began to sound a lot like a faith-based religion. Jesus warned his disciples about Spiritual Blindness, and admonished them to be "wise as serpents". Now, Kastrup describes how we may break-out of the western "illusion" by means of "cunning wisdom". He says : "true logic must come disguised as reason". This notion of Parmenidean True Logic is distinguished from the presumably False Logic of Aristotle, which defined the reasoning process for western Science. Years ago, I abandoned Faith Wisdom in favor of Evidential Reason. Now he wants me to go back, to take a leap of faith into eastern wisdom???

Having dismissed the scientific worldview as illusory, he quotes Kingsley : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude, the sense that it's all for the sake of something far greater than ourselves". Strangely, that "something" else is just as mysterious as the invisible immaterial deity of the ancient Hebrews, who seldom spoke publicly to ordinary men, but always through a human mouthpiece. Yet, he quotes Kingsley as advocating "a kind of cunning wisdom that can be used to trick, enchant, or persuade". Sounds like Donald Trump to me. Then, Kastrup suggests a ploy "to use pure, strict, sharp reasoning to undermine reason itself". To replace Greek reason with Hindu devotion or Buddhist hyper-subjectivity? That's when alarm bells go-off in the once-burnt mind of someone prejudiced-by-personal-experience against Faith ; not against Divinity per se, but in skepticism toward the cunning spokesmen for an absentee deity. For now, I prefer to remain Agnostic, and to let the unknown Creator speak to me through the public evidence of the knowable Creation. :halo:

But I can assure you the experience of 'the unitive vision' is a real thing — Wayfarer

I don't doubt that the Cosmic Unity or Oceanic*1 experience seems real. But I remain skeptical of the philosophical/religious doctrines associated with that feeling. From a more materialistic perspective, the perceptual/conceptual distinction between Self & Other has been experimentally traced to the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC)*2 . . . . among other brain modules. Presumably, when the operations of that module are depressed by neurotoxins (e.g. alcohol), the person may begin to act "intoxicated". Which, in some cultures, has been identified as a sign of spiritual possession (inspiration). Perhaps, due to the "out of the mouths of babes" effect*2{note}.

Since I have never been intoxicated with chemical or heavenly "spirits", I have no experience with the associated "unitive vision". So, I have to take the word of others (e.g. enraptured mystics) for what it's like to become One with God. I also have no idea about how deep meditation could produce a similar physical effect. But it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy (non-self state), or a form of self-induced depression of PFC. Some Buddhist monks have claimed to be able to control various sub-conscious bodily function via deep meditation.

Therefore, while I take your word for the "reality" of the Unitary way of viewing/experiencing the Cosmic Self, for me it remains an instance of Chalmers' "what it's like" problem of consciousness/awareness. :nerd:

PS___In the final chapter of Kastrup's Science Ideated, he distinguishes between traditional Reason, and "True Logic" as a means to discriminate "between reality and deception". I suppose that means my feeble philosophical attempts to make sense of the world, according to the conventional rules of reasoning, are in vain. He criticizes Western Reason for its lack of a role for the "divine". So, he concludes : "to serve the divine requires 'a deeply religious attitude' ". In my personal experience, that attitude was labeled "Faith". Unfortunately, my sojourn with Western religious Piety makes it seem to be a case of Self-Deception. Is an attitude of open-minded Creedence necessary to experience "the Unitive Vision"? Again, I apologize for slipping back into old dualistic habits of thought. It seems that, for me, Self is the sole reality, and Other is merely a plausible hypothesis. :cool:


*1. Oceanic Feeling :
"the phrase "oceanic feeling" to refer to "a sensation of 'eternity'", a feeling of "being one with the external world as a whole", inspired by the example of Ramakrishna, among other mystics." ___Wikipedia

*2. Which part of the brain is most associated with our self concept?
Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex.
https://now.uiowa.edu/news/2012/08/roots-human-self-awareness
Note --- The Prefrontal Cortex provides the so-called "Executive Function" of the body. This is supposed to be "Self/Soul", who is in control of all conscious bodily functions. When that function is disrupted by toxins, or even internal neurotransmitters, it may begin to malfunction. That's why a person intoxicated from alcohol, begins to act like a young irresponsible child, and may eventually lose its grip on some semi-conscious functions, such as bladder control.