There is no distinction. — Garrett Travers

For a biologist there may be no distinction, because he's interested in mechanisms, not functions. But for psychologists and philosophers, the meaning in a mind is the "difference that makes a difference". :nerd:

No, photons have mass, what are you talking about? Light and energy are material forces. — Garrett Travers

Photons only have mass when they slow down and transform into matter. Besides, Mass is not a material object, but a mathematical function otherwise known as "inertia". It's defined as a "property" of matter, but not as matter per se. A property is a mental attribution, a thought.

Energy-in-general likewise transforms into mass only when it slows from lightspeed into velocities our senses can detect. They are different forms of the same fundamental force, which is neither light nor matter, but the potential for both. Their distinct measurable properties are how scientists distinguish between each form and give it a special name. For example, an electron is intermediate between photon and matter. Hence, deserves its own designation.

Unfortunately, Mind & Thought have no measurable properties apart from their associated material or energetic forms. Their existence must be inferred indirectly. :smile:

What is Mass? :
mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
https://www.britannica.com/science/mass-physics

"But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does" — Gnomon
No. You need to brush up on cog-sci, this is an utterly unscientific assertion. Yes, we can see it through functional mri. — Garrett Travers

That assertion is a category error. It confuses the function of an MRI machine --- to display the Effects of a magnetic field on the iron molecules in blood --- with brain functions. MRI images require a human Mind to interpret that feedback in terms of malfunctions. :worry:

Yep, and they were wrong, all of them. I wish I could say it to their faces. — Garrett Travers

It's too bad that you can't argue with dead white men. But you could in theory tell Neurobiologist Christof Koch that he's wrong about The Feeling of Life Itself. The "feeling" he refers to is not a physical object, or a neuronal computation, but something else entirely. He calls it a "hack", but it's essentially an emergent Quality, which can't be measured, but can be experienced. He even toys with the notion of Panpsychism (i.e. widespread). Is he "wrong", in your expert opinion? You could suggest that he "brush-up on cog-sci". :wink:

The Feeling of Life Itself :
Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/feeling-life-itself

The thoughts are in fact the functions. There are no "thoughts," just computations which are observed through executive function, another brain function. — Garrett Travers

A "function" is a mathematical concept, not a tangible object. See the Koch quotes above & below for his opinion on thoughts as computations. In what sense is a computation a material thing? :grin:

Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist :
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? . . .
In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations
http://cognet.mit.edu/book/consciousness

That's because that which does not exist leaves no evidence of itself having not existed, except the absence of evidence existence itself. — Garrett Travers

You, perhaps deliberately, missed the point of "non-physical existence". If ideas & thoughts are experienced in your reality, then they have an existence of some kind. It's just a question of labeling. Consciousness researchers refer to "ideas", not as material things, but as immaterial "representations" of both objective things and subjective thoughts. Long after the idea or feeling is gone, we can recall then in the form of Memories, which are also subjective Thoughts. :nerd:

Representationalism :
philosophical theory of knowledge based on the assertion that the mind perceives only mental images (representations) of material objects outside the mind, not the objects themselves.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/representationism

"Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs." — Gnomon
We actually can't even do that. — Garrett Travers

If you can't compare opinions and beliefs, what are we doing on this forum? Are we teleporting physical objects over cyber-space? :cool:

Everything but Strings, yes. The domain of ideal existence exploration is here, right here on earth, — Garrett Travers

Are you denying the existence of "Strings" & "Loops". You may not be able to see them, even in principle, but the idea of such entities certainly "exist" as thoughts or feelings in the functioning minds of earth-bound mathematicians. They don't attempt to prove their existence empirically, but merely ask you to take it on faith, until they are eventually able to use the power of Strings to cause changes in the real world. Meanwhile, their only evidence is long strings of abstract numbers & symbols that are intended to "represent" unseen things. :joke:

Oh, because of Kant, and Heroclitus, and Descartes, and all manner of people who didn't understand that mind and body weren't seprate, but the very same entity. — Garrett Travers

If mind & body are the same entity, shouldn't they have the same properties? Yet, we give them different names & meanings because we perceive a significant difference between them. The body/brain has physical properties, and the mind has "non-physical" qualities. We detect the existence of physical objects via our 5 senses. But we infer the existence of "non-physical" non-things by deduction from circumstantial evidence.

I don't know anyone who denies that there is a causal relationship between Brain & Mind. But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does. Which is how we know there's such a thing as Energy. It has no physical properties, only physical effects. That's also why Kant, Descartes, et al, made a categorical philosophical distinction between Mind & Body.

The Mind/Body problem only arises when some people attribute "non-physical" properties to Mind/Soul that are not rationally inferred, but emotionally imputed : such as Immortality & Ghosts. It's those unverifiable attributions that are debatable, not the intuitive functions such as verbally communicable Thoughts and Ideas. Yet, we can't find physical evidence to support or deny "non-physical" existence.

We simply take other people's thoughts for granted, because of our personal experience with the phenomenon of thinking. But, lacking direct experience with Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs. We may debate the mysterious hows & whys of Ideal existence, but that's also true of such presumably physical objects as Quarks & sub-quantum Strings. :smile:

Now consider where your thoughts come from. What is the source and origin of thoughts? — Garrett Travers

I understand where you are coming from. But you redirected the intent of the OP, to change the controversial subject to one less debatable. OP seems to assume the existence of brains. So his question regards the conditional existence of "thoughts" -- e.g. what do they consist of?. If mental phenomena are included in your personal model of reality. in what sense do they exist? Is there more than one way to be? If thoughts are not existent in some sense, why do we have a noun name for them? It's a theoretical philosophical query, not an empirical scientific slam-dunk.

Some people go so far as to reverse the hierarchy of material existence, postulating that Mind is more fundamental than Matter. Of course, they have no empirical evidence to support that position. So, it's just another age-old philosophical conundrum. Why then, does the notion of an immaterial aspect of reality persist in this day & age? It's easy to haughtily label such childlike questions as coming from ignorance or stupidity. But some proponents of a separate realm for invisible & intangible Ideas & Thoughts are manifestly of high IQ. Some are even highly credentialed mathematicians. Are they insane, or is there some philosophical meat to chew on?

My personal worldview is not Either-Or, but BothAnd. So, I can see the reasoning behind both perspectives. Which is why I accept that both Science and Philosophy have valid roles in human culture. And Quantum queerness has just added fuel to that long-burning fire. So, why can't we have an adult conversation about an idea that won't go away? :smile:

Mathematical Reality :
Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London, called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Gonna butt in here with some of my homespun analysis. Universals don't exist, but they're real. They're real as constraints and possibilities, the forms that things must take in order to exist. But they're not real on the level of existent things, their reality is of a different order to phenomena. — Wayfarer

Yes, It's that dual meaning of "exist" & "real" that causes us to talk past each other. Some deny the existence of "a different order of phenomena". AFAIK for almost 14 billion years, there were no minds, and hence no Universals or General Concepts and no Ideas or Ideals. When your dog is looking pensive, is he pondering Universals? Is your talking parrot a philosopher?

"Constraints" and "absences" are essential to Deacon's book Incomplete Nature. But some can't wrap their matter-based worldview around the notion of nothingness. But even the ancient Atomists were forced to assume a Void for their atoms to move around in. No void, no motion, no change, no evolution. :smile:

I regret I haven't read the works you refer to, but just what is that supposed to mean? — Ciceronianus

It means that what you think of as capital "S" Science is a moving target. And these envelope-pushers may know something you don't. For example, Deacon has postulated the counter-intuitive notion of "causal absence". Check it out. But hold your prejudice until you understand what he's talking about. :wink:


Incomplete Nature : How Mind Emerged from Matter
is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon. The book covers topics in biosemiotics, philosophy of mind, and the origins of life. Broadly, the book seeks to naturalistically explain "aboutness", that is, concepts like intentionality, meaning, normativity, purpose, and function; which Deacon groups together and labels as ententional phenomena. . . .
The book expands upon the classical conceptions of work and information in order to give an account of ententionality that is consistent with eliminative materialism and yet does not seek to explain away or pass off as epiphenominal the non-physical properties of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Oh, I see. I am in 100% accord with this analysis. — Garrett Travers

Good! The problem with Systems Theory is that, like all Holistic attempts to understand Nature, General & Universal concepts are not knowable by sensory observation or reductive analysis. Instead, we develop such mental models of reality by rational inference from direct personal experience, or from second-hand learning from other envelope pushers.. The next Theory of Everything will never be a confirmed fact, but merely a new target to shoot down.

That's why scientists, who make general judgments about whole sub-categories of Nature, are going beyond the empirical evidence to make metaphysical philosophical postulations. They can't possibly observe every possible combination of elements. And they are seldom testable with current technology. So, they fill-in the gaps in direct knowledge with the imaginary links of pattern recognition (inference). This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation.

The scientists, in the books I listed above, are professional empiricists, but their topics of study are on the cutting-edge of technology, Some focus on Abstract Math (string & loop theory), others on Quantum Weirdness (entanglement), and a few on Consciousness (the last frontier of science). Consequently, like all philosophical postulations, they are open to challenge. You might call them "un-settled science": And they are often accused of dabbling in Metaphysics. But. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if it challenges my "settled" opinion of how the world should work.

Science evolves & advances by pushing the boundaries of the current world map. And yet, just as in politics, conservatives typically accuse the pushy pioneers of "pseudoscience", or even worse "metaphysics". And it seems to be true, historically, that unfettered liberal minds do tend to make discoveries before the plodders, who don't stick their necks out. For example, Einstein was not a practicing scientist when he published his five papers that turned the classical world upside down. So, I'd be careful not to label those long-neck scientists as anti-scientific. Unless they claim to see the promised land from the mountain of Metaphysics.

The purpose of this thread is not to propagandize pseudoscience, but to translate the fringey findings of Science into meaningful philosophical concepts. For example, Hoffman's provocative assertion that "Reality is an Illusion", makes a lot of sense to me. And, I understand that he is not denying our common sense model of material reality, but merely noting that that notion is a map, not the territory. :smile:


The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes. Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
Note -- Einstein's Block Time is not an empirical observation, but a universal extrapolation. But is it Real?

Consciousness: The Final Frontier :
Understanding consciousness may be the greatest challenge posed to science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/consciousness-self-organization-and-neuroscience/201804/consciousness-the-final-frontier

Science advances one funeral at a time :
Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

TERRA INCOGNITA

I think there's a lot more to learn about this before we start speculating about "non-physical reality." What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway. — Ciceronianus

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? Besides, the authors of the books referenced are pragmatic scientists, who were forced by the counter-intuitive "facts" they dug-up to speculate on what they might mean for our intuitive worldview and our incomplete "standard theory" of reality. Scientist have been trying over the last century to reconcile Relativity and Quantum models of reality. How much longer do we need to wait? Anyway, on this forum of philosophical dilettantes, we don't do empirical, we do conjecture. And Quantum un-reality is a fervid ferment of speculation, even among those who eschew philosophy. :smile:

Emergent Space-Time :
"A growing number of physicists . . . are increasingly converging on a profound idea : space -- and perhaps even time -- is not fundamental, Instead, space and time my be emergent. . . . While quantum physics treats space and time as immutable, general relativity warps them for breakfast."
Scientific American magazine, Feb 2022
Note -- Sci-fi novelists dramatically speculate on the possible implications of such scientific profundities all the time. So, why can't prosaic philosophers dabble in such open questions?

I have Penrose's book (2004) and have read portions over the last few years. The subtitle is "A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" , and I don't find him in general questioning our traditional understanding of reality — jgill

I haven't read the book, but from reviews I get the impression that his Mathematical Reality is essentially the same thing as Virtual Reality. If that is not questioning our traditional understanding of reality (Materialism & Atomism) I don't know what it's all about. :cool:

Mathematical Reality :
Quantum theory has been used in support of materialism, as well, to give us a proposed material theory of consciousness. Sir Roger Penrose, the British mathematician, and theoretical physicist has argued that it is quantum effects that give rise to the sense we have of free will. . . .
Dualism—that there’s more to reality than just matter and energy—has to solve the problem of interaction. How do material objects and ideas work with each other if they are completely different? Materialism has no such problem because there is only one kind of thing, but it has its own challenge—free will.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/what-is-the-material-theory-of-consciousness-and-free-will/

or that reality is not materially composed. No, this is not a true assertion — Garrett Travers

You misunderstood. I did not assert that these scientists were claiming that "reality is not materially composed", Instead, they are beginning to explore some of the emergent holistic (systems) features of the material world, that cannot be understood reductively. Some of them are focusing on the Mental phenomena that are associated with a material substrate, but are not in themselves physical objects, and not composed of particles. Others, are trying to make sense of some Quantum phenomena, such as Entanglement, that seem to arise from collective properties instead of from particular components.

Since the useful concept of Holism was quickly adopted by various believers in body/mind dualism, most scientists now prefer the term Systems Theory. But, it's the same thing by another name. And integrated systems don't yield their secrets to reductive methods of dissection into isolated parts. So, I'm merely trying to remove the stigma from this "New Physics", so we can discuss it's philosophical implications without recriminations. :smile:

The New Physics :
The term new physics refers to a range of fundamental developments and paradigm shifts that occurred in the physical sciences during the last half of the twentieth century.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/new-physics

I do say that, and require evidence to change my mind. Meaningprediction, experiment, and falsifiability. Otherwise, it's just religion. — Garrett Travers

The sciences of Systems are inherently Holistic & philosophical & somewhat subjective, so the classical methods of reductive science don't work for them. And, the "evidence" is mostly circumstantial. The authors of the books noted above are highly trained scientists, but they are forced to use philosophical methods to parse & collate the few reliable facts they are turning up in their studies. Some of them even reluctantly admit that they are dabbling in theoretical philosophy (search for causes), which is often denigrated by empirical scientists (study of effects) -- and ironically by some posters on this Philosophical Forum who use "feckless" argument instead of effective experiment. :nerd:

Science vs Natural Philosophy :
They began to separate in the 19th century, when the term science was coined, and over the course of the 19th century, it replaced “natural philosopher.” The two had begun to branch out earlier than that with the development of the hypothetico-deductive model, which locks science into a particular epistemology,
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/12/when-did-science-and-philosophy-separate-into-different-fields-of-study.html

Let's cover this nonsense argument:
1. Potentialities are useful metrics if those potentialities emerge as inductively observable phenomena
2. Usefulness of potentialities implies an expansion of the concept of reality
3. That concept should include objects that will never appear as inductively observable phenomena — Garrett Travers

You are using philosophical methods to argue against the conclusions of a group of credentialed scientists, including Werner Heisenberg. But, you miss their point. They may not be using the term "Potentia" in the "non-sense" way you allege. They are indeed pushing the boundaries of 19th century science, but don't you think their intelligence deserves a bit more respect.? :wink:

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon
No. — Garrett Travers

Well, I suppose we have nothing to discuss then. :smile:

All question the classical physical model of reality. — Gnomon
Actually, they do not. Not in any sense that violates the mechanics and understandings of the macroscopic reality that quanta amass. — Garrett Travers

If you'll check out the books listed, you'll see that they do question classical mechanics. That's why they place Quantum Mechanics in a special category. Because it's not mechanical at all in the old fashioned sense. Each in his own way is trying to reconcile the mysterious aspects of quantum physics with the common-sense of macro physics. But, quantum phenomena don't simply "amass" (add-up to) macro physics.
FWIW, my own intuitive view of the world is still classical. So, I have to take the weirdness of the quantum realm on faith in the priests of physics. Whose pronouncements are constantly changing to adapt to new discoveries. :cool:

Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? — Gnomon
100%, and necessary as well, or we're all fucked and in a hurry. — Garrett Travers

Great! Glad to hear that pushing the boundaries of Science and Philosophy are not heretical to some posters. Too many on the forum express their exegesis of the science -- without quoting book, chapter & verse -- and instantly reject any unfamiliar interpretations. :chin:

But notice, no reductive empirical materialists in the list. These theoretical scientists are more like philosophers. — Gnomon
You're first clue that they're not onto something. — Garrett Travers

Are you saying that these highly credentialed scientists are wrong to question orthodoxy? That they are crying "wolf" when there is no wolf? Have you read any of their books? Admittedly, their cutting-edge ideas are not yet in the officially sanctioned textbooks. But you could say that about any new paradigms in science. :nerd:

Reality doesn't care about measurements — Garrett Travers

Perhaps, I haven't interviewed Reality to get her opinion. But scientists & philosophers do care about measurements. The problem with quantum measurements is that they are open to interpretation. When I suggest that Aristotle understood the power of Potential long before modern science noticed the Power of Absence, I get boos for quoting ignorant dead white men. :wink:

Incomplete Nature :
A central thesis of the book is that absence can still be efficacious.
biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities :
“Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously,”
And that, in a nutshell, is pretty much the same as the logic underlying the new interpretation of quantum physics. In the new paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. It is perhaps less of a full-blown interpretation than a new philosophical framework for contemplating those quantum mysteries. At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.
“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an
extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,”
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/quantum-mysteries-dissolve-if-possibilities-are-realities

Wouldn't be too sure about that. — Wayfarer

Yes. Most of the theoretical scientists on my list attempt to avoid losing their materialist credentials, even as they undermine the foundations of Materialism. A few are brave enough to describe their explorations beyond the pale as "philosophical". Yet, even fewer would use the term "metaphysics" to describe their hypothetical postulations. :joke:

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon

Can we take a modern, science-informed perspective on the topics that Aristotle covered in the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature (Reality as known in the 5th century BC). For example : Substance & Essence. Although he defined "substance" in terms of the essential qualities of a thing, today that term is associated with a quantity of massy Matter, as distinguished from the immaterial Design or Conceptual Pattern of a thing. It's partly that reversal of meaning between then & now that make communication on metaphyical topics so fraught. So, I suggest that we be careful to define terms such as "substance" as scientific (matter) or philosophical (essence), depending on the application.

Metaphysics is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that he refers to sometimes as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics. ___Wikipedia

In the TPF thread labeled What is Metaphysics, yet again, the posts divided neatly into two camps : Physics (sense) versus Non-Physics (nonsense). I tried to avoid that Black vs White polarization by adding a hyphen to the word : Meta-Physics. I was hoping we could discuss the topics that Aristotle covered in his second volume, instead of the first volume -- both under the heading of Nature (phusis). But the ideological divide turned-out to be too stark. So, I next suggested another spelling variation to suggest a distinction between Matter & Mind : Menta-Physics. But that ploy was also rejected, apparently because some Materialists are absolute Monists : all that is real is Physical, because Matter is the "fundamental substance" of nature. And that worldview categorically rejects Cartesian Dualism. Consequently, my attempt to philosophically focus on subjective ideas instead of objective things was blocked at every turn.

But, since my personal worldview includes both the tangible evidence of massy things, and the intangile inferences of massless concepts, I'm still looking for an inoffensive term that might bypass the (physical vs spiritual) prejudice attached to an old technical term of philosophy to describe the aspects of human experience that don't fit under the reductive microsope of Physics. So, instead of "Mental", which is associated with "Soul", I tried to focus on the "Logical-Mathematical" aspects of Nature. Yet again, I was foiled, because Materialists place that topic under the purview of Science, as opposed to Philosophy or Religion. And despite its lack of massy stuff, it's considered an honorary material substance, as in Quantum Fields.

My next attempt at re-labelling the immaterial subject-(non)matter of my interest, I proposed the amorphous category of "Non-Physical". Yet again, I was surprised that someone had beat me to it -- it's already a thing. Unfortunately, it's usually associated with Theology, and Spirituality. So, my attempts to Include Psychology under the heading of Philosophy were blocked at every turn. The Protestant split from Catholic hegemony was paralleled by a rupture between Theoretical Philosophy and Empirical Science. And, for some, never the twain shall meet again.

Therefore centuries after the empirical Enlightenment, the human Mind remains in the shadows of an impoverished ghetto : Psychology. Which has now been gentrified under the label of Neuro-Science. Ironically, even some prominent neuroscientists have admitted that their study of reductive neuron networks is peripheral to their actual interest in the Mind as a whole system *1. Brain-mapping is not the same as understanding the Mind. "The map is not the terrain". So, they propose to study the mind as a Complex Adaptive System *2, using the methods of General Systems Theory. Ironically, that offshoot of modern materialist Science, is essentially the same approach as the Holism that is associated with Eastern religions and Western New Age cults. So, for hard Materialists, even Systems Theory is suspect, as it's more theoretical & metaphorical than empirical & mathematical. But that's because a complex system has emergent Qualities that are not measurable as intrinsic Properties (Quanta).

Since some researchers have concluded that even Neuroscience will never resolve the "Hard Problem" of soft sensibility, where do we go from here? Must we abandon the quest to understand ourselves? Or will we continue on diverging paths of conservative Science and liberal Philosophy? That's not a poll question. :smile:


*1. Can Neuroscience reveal the true nature of consciousness ?
The problem: finding the neural correlate of consciousness isn’t going to solve anything
https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness05/LammeNeuroscience.pdf

*2. Complex adaptive systems thinking (CAST) is a different approach to analysis that takes into account the features and elements of a system, how they work together and how they influence each other. ... Multiple Perspectives: personal beliefs, world views, voices, knowledge and culture that exist in a system.

Your account discounts the role of the Essenes and Enoch groups in viewing the matter beyond the sweaty business of winning wars. The notion expressed in Isaiah that the 'rivers would reverse flow' to Zion is not simply a claim upon real estate but concerned the rest of the world. — Paine

I mentioned that Jesus seemed to be influenced by the Essenes, who were mystics, Instead of physically fighting the Romans, they withdrew to the desert. And their main occupation was preserving the written word of God. Ironically, "unlike the Pharisees, the Essenes denied the resurrection of the body". https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene

However, the recorded words of Jesus were somewhat ambiguous on his role. He may have hinted that his mission was mystical & spiritual, but it's obvious that his followers were expecting a real flesh & blood Messiah. So, they waited for him to come forth from the grave, like Lazarus, and continue the good fight, to show his power over both Romans and Death. Not to retreat into the safety of Heaven; leaving his followers leaderless.

Upon any interpretation, it's clear that Satan (or Rome, or Babylon, or Death) won that round of the cosmic battle. So, Donald Trump --- held by some to be a Conservative Messiah, and by others to be the AntiChrist --- would probably privately call Jesus a "loser". :joke:

Logos obviously has meaning in the narrative as a Greek word but how it is used as a source of creation is evident in Judaic literature in many different roles as well. — Paine

Yes. I suppose the Jews were familiar with the notion of the "word" (dabar) of God, referring to spoken creative power. But the implication of Greek "Logos" was probably intended to suggest that Jesus had existed eternally as a disembodied spirit. Which was the emerging explanation for the disappointing demise of their long awaited Jewish revolutionary leader & king, who died before completing his mission : to drive-out the Roman colonizers.

"Messiah" was always described as a flesh & blood sword-wielding descendant of David, not a wizard casting spells with magic words. But "Christ" was a new spiritualized concept, that allowed the mission to be completed at some unspecified later date. Thus, Jews & Christians are still waiting for deliverance, 2000 years later. That's the illogical theological advantage of an eternal spiritual savior : time has no meaning for him. So, the exegetical scrum goes on. :meh:

Jesus was influenced by Hellenistic thought. — Dermot Griffin

Of course, Jesus must have been influenced by the Greek culture that had ruled the Middle East for centuries. But the actual "sayings" of Jesus reflect his own Jewish culture -- especially the wisdom literature of the Essenes. So, It may have been the apostles to the gentiles that presented their Christian doctrine in terms familiar to non-Jews.

Paul was educated in both traditions, but even staunch-Jewish John used the Greek philosophical concept of the abstract principle "Logos" as a metaphor for the super-human notion of "Christ", the eternally existing deity who manifested in human form. That hybrid god-human model was sacrilegious to monotheistic Orthodox Jews. Anyway, I doubt that Jesus himself was as Hellenized as the Catholic canon of scriptures made it seem. For example, a god trinity was common to both Greeks and Romans. :smile:

Jesus' World :
Things like Platonic philosophy and Stoic philosophy at the level it was appropriated by a person like Philo, probably would not have had a direct impact on Jesus.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/hellenisticculture.html

Triple Deity :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity

I value liberty but hate the ugliness that results from the liberties some people take — Athena

Exactly where to place Limits on Liberty is an ancient philosophical conundrum. Supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said something like "your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose". :smile:

Here's a link to the Flower Power photo :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Flower_Power_by_Bernie_Boston.jpg

Godel uses modal logic and certain modal assumptions. His argument is not "mathematical computation" — TonesInDeepFreeze

OK. I didn't know that. But I was responding to the OP, which mentioned "computational metaphysics". I suppose the difference between Modal Logic and Mathematical Logic is primarily in the vagueness of modal terms, such as "Necessity". If so, then I guess my own reasoning was more like Modal Logic than Mathematical Computation. Which would explain how rational people could arrive at different conclusions from the same premise. Anyway, it's not a big deal for me. The God concept will remain, as always, a debatable metaphysical opinion instead of an absolute mathematical certainty. :smile:

Gödel’s ontological proof uses mathematical logic to show that the existence of God is a necessary truth. “God” in Gödel’s proof is defined as a “Godlike object”. In order for an object to be “Godlike”, it must have every good or positive property. Also, a Godlike object has no negative properties. — Photios

I'm not a mathematician, so I don't use "mathematical logic" to prove the existence of a Necessary Being. So, while I agree with Goedel's general conclusion, my "verbal logic" indicates that a "godlike object" must be Holistic, hence encompassing all aspects of the real world : both positive & negative; both matter & antimatter; both good & evil. Even Christianity acknowledged that logic by including an evil lesser god (Satan) to blame for all the not-so-good features of the creation. In Hinduism, there are good and evil gods, but they are all subsumed under the universal unitary deity Brahman, not to be confused with the triumvirate personality Brahma.

In math, necessity is equivalent to unity, so that 1 = 1. Therefore, if there are parts of a system, there must be a whole system to unify them. If there is more than one thing, there must be a category of all things. You can't have Something, without acknowledging the necessary existence of Everything. But those math/logic abstractions are far from the conventional understanding of God. The Whole or ALL may be perfect, but if there are imperfections in the creation, the potential for negative must exist in the creator. That doesn't mean that G*D is Evil, but that in the whole system positive & negative cancel each other out : like matter + antimatter = zero matter (annihilation). But, since Energy is neither created nor destroyed, the neutral positive-negative Potential remains in the system, like a storage battery. In any case, neutral Potential energy is necessary for positive-negative Actual energy.

I'm sure that rambling reply sounds neither logical nor mathematical. But to me, Goedel's "all good, no negative" conclusion in bold, sounds more like Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology than mathematical computation. :nerd:

Necessary Being :
Spinoza and Leibniz held that what makes God necessary explains his very existence.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/necessary-being/v-1
.
Mathematical Necessity :
In logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

Could Romanticism be the problem? — Athena

When I look for synonyms of "Romanticism", most of the alternatives sound like innocent adolescent sentimental mawkishness. So, I suspect what you are actually referring to is "Extremism" in the form of unbridled Utopianism or Idealism. It's not the dreams of a perfect world that cause trouble, but the willingness to compel others to live in your dream-world. Obviously, enthusiastic & charismatic leaders have been able to persuade a significant portion of compatriots to join their Quixotic quest for an idealized reality : If not a perfect world, at least a better world for Us without Them.

So, the problem is not Hippie peace & love, or small-town conservatism, but all-or-nothing dreams enforced with spears & guns. Nazism was extreme Conservatism, that appealed to people humiliated & burdened in punishment for their Kaiser's WWI nationalism. Communism was extreme Liberalism, that appealed to the downtrodden serfs and lower classes of all nations. And the mass slaughters of the Crusades & Holy Wars were Christian & Islamic extremism, that spread the gospel at the point of a sword. Other, more accurate terms may be Zealotry, Fanaticism, Radicalism, or Chauvinism. :cool:

ROMANTIC FLOWER POWER vs PRAGMATIC GUN POWER

Is there any way that a person can largely have free will, but maybe in certain circumstances there is a force unknown to them that corrals them to particular decisions? — TiredThinker

In theory, perhaps. But in practice, it seems to be the other way around. We are indeed "corralled" by forces beyond our ken, yet we are free to run around inside the fence. And occasionally, we might jump the fence to run free as the wind. :grin:

Is Romanticism the cause of world wars and dreams of Utopia leading to mass murder and tyranny? — Athena

It takes two to tangle. So idealistic liberal poetic Romantics might build their Utopias & cloud castles, if not for the obstruction of pragmatic conservative prosaic Realists, who prefer to build on a solid foundation. Pain & War result, not from Romanticism or Realism, but from the inability to compromise on a blend of poetry & prose. :smile:

The term “moderate” will have to do. As much as I love Aristotle I think his political thought isn’t practical for the world today. — Dermot Griffin

I suspect that Aristotle's motto of "moderation in all things" was adopted by the Stoics as the best path to happiness. Like the Buddha, they saw that striving for the top is more likely to result in Strife than Harmony.

Ironically, those who are motivated to radically change society, typically end-up flipping the poles, while continuing the polarization. Example, Communism in Russia toppled the upper class, but did little for the lowest classes. They merely replaced the Czarists with party chiefs, who eventually became Oligarchs. And the bottom class remains stuck in serfdom. The same pattern holds for Democratic revolutions, as in France & America, where hereditary aristocracy was replaced -- in theory -- with a meritocracy. So Ari & Siddhartha (both aristocrats) would advise that we be content with the status quo. On the other hand, world history of moderation would be boring without all the striving & strife, heroes & villains. :cool:

Meritocracy : a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people.

One author put it this way: "white people mind getting poorer less than they mind black people getting richer". — Bitter Crank

That reminds me of a quip my non-racist mother made during the racial tensions of the 60s. In the early 20th century, she grew up in the Black Belt where white people were a tiny minority (maybe 10%), but owned about 90% of the property. (My mother's family was "land poor", and her father was the mule-wagon equivalent of a truck driver). Her remark was probably a common sentiment during post-civil-war reconstruction, when "carpet baggers" (northerners) made sure that black people got a larger share of political power. To former top or middle rail whites, it seemed that "bottom rail's on top", referring to the horizontal rails of a wooden fence.

Of course, blacks never made it to the top in any large numbers, during reconstruction or during the Black Power movement. But, they were becoming more visible in positions of power and wealth. So middle-class whites seemed to feel that they were in danger of becoming the "bottom rail". Ironically. black politicians & money-makers, while doing much better, remain only a token percentage of the wealth & power distribution. At the same time, the middle class of whites & blacks are sliding downward, due to the concentration of wealth at the very top. So, both the "middle rail" and "bottom rail" are far from the "top rail".

Ironically, a billionaire like Trump seems to appeal to middle & lower class whites, because he implies that he will "make America white again". Some people feel that a top vs bottom racial polarization is more natural than an egalitarian society. :cool:

Wealth inequality in the United States :
The gap between the wealth of the top 10% and that of the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Land Poor :
: In a condition of poverty as a result of inability to meet tax payments or other financial requirements for one's land holdings.

RAIL FENCE

I try not to identify as a progressive or conservative and am not registered as a Democrat or Republican; — Dermot Griffin

Sounds like you are a political moderate, seeking Aristotle's proportionally balanced Golden Mean. But there are always a few people in any group that feel politically marginalized, and may be susceptible to being radicalized by grievance-pandering leaders. Their aim may be to upset the fragile balance of democratic politics in favor of dominance by "our kind of people". Which could result in the oppression of "your kind of people".

I just read an article from NPR (national public radio; which usually tries to maintain a moderate position). The title is : Americans are fleeing to places where political views match. That's one downside of the US interstate & internet mobility,. It allows those on the margins locally to congregate with others of like mind. In some ways this is good. But it could tend to result in pockets of immoderate citizens, who may be motivated to use non-democratic (demagogue) methods to change the whole nation to their way of thinking & feeling.

The recent "insurrection" in Washington is a sign of retro-leaders pointing back to a serene Golden Age (1950s) as a model to "Make America Gibbous Again" (MAGA). Ironically, the original insurrection of 1776 was led primarily by radicalized Liberals, rebelling against colonial Fascism. :chin: :

Gibbous : asymmetrical ; unbalanced :joke:

Americans are fleeing :
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-americans-move-to-areas-political-alignment?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Are we here in the United States more polarized now then we were in the 1960’s? — Dermot Griffin

Probably not. But the poles may be temporarily reversed. In the 60s Liberalism became radicalized, partly in response to the Communist crack-down of the 50s (McCarthyism), and the Black vs White tensions following WWII (Racism). Today, Conservatism has been radicalized largely due to the Fascist ascendancy of the 00s (Trumpism), yet bi-polar racism has been widened & watered-down into a multi-sided array of off-setting -isms. So, we are long overdue for a third or fourth party to dilute our divisions into a less incendiary mixture.

Overall, this bi-polar (Thesis vs Antithesis) push-pull is just a continuation of the political swings that have been going-on since Tribalism became civilized into party Politics. Hegel summarized the dynamics of political discourse as an on-going shouting-match he called "The Dialectic". Just as the Lords vs Commons & Left vs Right polarization of early British parliaments was an over-simplification of a convoluted internal struggle for narrow political interests, the Dialectic diagram is an easy-to-understand model of a complex fermentation of varying opinions on small-scale local issues. Current UK parties : Alliance Party · Conservative Party · Co-operative Party · Democratic Unionist Party · Green Party · Labour Party · Liberal Democrats . . . .

Fortunately for humanity as a whole, this back & forth tug-of-war is usually more-or-less evenly balanced. The Lords have more economic power, but the Commons have more voting numbers. So the overall historical path is a blotchy blend of Black & White into some shade of gray. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much of a spark to push a single-fulcrum balance toward one extreme or the other. For example, the accidental continental conflict we call World War One, set the stage for an even more radically polarized struggle for supremacy of WWII : Right-wing NAZIs on one side, and left-wing Commies on the other.

So, what we see today, especially in the US, is a shifting dialectic balance that could easily be triggered into civil war, as in the 1800s. Meanwhile, internationally, just as the trigger event for WWI was a minor local assassination of a powerful symbolic emperor, the localized attempt by Russia to reunite the Soviet empire (to annex Ukraine bit-by-bit) could again ignite a wider conflict. Yet again, radical nationalism will compete with conservative economic interests and plebeian passions for dominance

Fortunately, the world today is a globalized economy with instant world-wide communication. Therefore, the left/right struggle for power could be fought between Oligarchs vs Oil Companies, or Hackers vs CyberPunks instead of real-world armies. Likewise, the US is no longer easily divided into North & South (industrial & agricultural). Maybe, the US, and the rest of the world, will succeed in holding the historical course, by muddling down the Synthetic middle. Stay tuned. :cool:

DYNAMIC BALANCE ( moderation from competition)

MULTI-PARTY BALANCE (moderation from homogenization)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

why should I try to answer a question that doesn't need an answer? — T Clark

If cosmic questions don't tickle your impractical inquisitiveness, I'm sure you can find more practical & proximate problems to philosophize about. However, my childhood religion instilled an interest in eternity, destiny, and other quixotic quests, Ironically my intellectual curiosity was not abated, when I reasoned myself out of my puerile pre-packaged paradigm. The itch may have even increased, as I looked for a replacement frame-of-reference, from which to view the macrocosm as a whole integrated system, instead of disparate dots in the sky. The 60s opened-up many exotic possibilities, but none passed the skeptical test of plausibility. So, I passed my life with no clear worldview.

It was only after forced retirement, by the Great Recession, that I had time to really pull together all the threads I'd been gathering, into a unified science & philosophy-based understanding of how & why the world exists & evolves as it does. That is, obviously progressive, but not yet perfected. My unifying concept is the merger of a universal role for shape-shifting Information (energy, matter, mind) and the formless foundation (quantum substructure) of the sensible physical world . Together, they suggest reasonable answers to ancient cosmic questions of how and why.

Ironically, that 21st century Cosmology turned-out to be essentially the same as the allegorical guesses of those pre-scientific sages. There is something invisible-yet-essential in the world : the power to enform something from nothing, and something new from something old. Today, we call it mundane Energy, but a more cosmic term is "Enformy", which reductive scientists dismissively labelled as "Negentropy". Exploring the manifestations & implications of that generative power, brings out the detective in me.

And I'm still looking for clues at the scene of the Cosmic Creation crime : a self-aware world with a mysterious miraculous beginning, that physics has not yet explained. Perhaps, even you or I could be the humble hero to finally fill the pot-holes in this puzzle with our super-powers of Reasoning from Perception to Principle. Sorry, I'm sounding evangelical again, but that's just due to my raising. Can I get an amen? :nerd:

The invisible structure of mathematical relationships :
Did you know that mathematical reality applies in our body and in the universe? . . . What is the invisible secret of this visible structure?
https://fountainmagazine.com/2003/issue-44-october-december-2003/the-invisible-script-on-the-visible-mathematics

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BotAnd Blog Glossary

My point from the beginning has been, given the information we have about life and the universe, there is no need to hypothesize teleology, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, fine-tuning, or any other similar phenomenon. — T Clark

OK. But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. I appreciate the Stoic state of mind, but not to the point of complete indifference to the dynamic system we humans are vital components of. Even the godless Existentialists retained some involvement in the wider world around them --- something bigger than Self. Philosophy must be motivated by some mystery to be solved.

I suspect that a Reductionist focus on tiny details, may result in a "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" myopia. Of course carrying Holism to an extreme could have the opposite effect of not noticing the ground under your feet. Yet, a happy medium perspective is a best-of-both-worlds compromise. You can "get-real" about the here & now, while also dabbling in probable future scenarios, such as the ultimate destination of the mostly deterministic world.

I'm not a very passionate person, but I find the possibility that the world is progressing toward some kind of meaningful resolution to be fascinating. At the least, it provides a little positivity for those who are dismayed by the the current end-of-world doom & gloom outlook ; to wit, at least half the recent output from Hollywood has been dystopian-Post-Apocalyptic-wallowing-in-misery movies. Although they usually feature lone Greek heroes fighting against Fate, I try to avoid them because they are depressing for us non-super-heroes. Anyway, I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s, when optimism was re-blooming. Besides, my personal BothAnd worldview allows me to take the bumps gracefully, while looking at the road beyond the headlights.

Sorry! Sounds like I'm preaching. But I can't help it. My life is almost over, but LIFE in the universe is just beginning. :smile:


20 Best Post-Apocalyptic Movies on Netflix Right Now :
https://thecinemaholic.com/best-post-apocalyptic-movies-on-netflix/

"Philosophy is important because it's the leading edge of human inquiry. Maths, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, economics, ..."
https://dailynous.com/2018/08/08/why-is-philosophy-important/

"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein, one of my favorite philosophers

I don't think there is a downward trend. I don't think there is any trend. — T Clark

Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculativeTeleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. Would that be less polarizing and more productive? Perhaps a discussion of "orthogenesis" or "orthoselection". I don't know much about them, but Orthoselection seems to be what Darwin had in mind as Natural Selection. That might provide the means for progression or digression toward some short-term or ultimate state -- that we could evaluate as positive or negative relative to our current status. We can only speculate about the future, but the past is subject to some empirical evidence. Then, if there is some sign of a non-random pattern, we can project it into the near future, and see what happens. :smile:

What are the major evolutionary trends? :
For example, McShea (1998) listed eight potential large-scale trends, including overall directional changes in “entropy, energy intensiveness, evolutionary versatility, developmental depth, structural depth, adaptedness, size, and complexity.”
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0055-6

evolutionary trend A steady change in a given adaptive direction, either in an evolutionary lineage or in a particular attribute (e.g. height of shoot). Such trends are often apparent in unrelated taxa. Formerly they were attributed to orthogenesis; now orthoselection or the contending theory of species selection are invoked.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/biology-general/evolutionary-trend

Ortho is a Greek prefix meaning “straight”, “upright”, “right” or “correct”.

I don't see any reason to continue with this discussion. We're not getting anywhere. — T Clark

OK. I understand that you believe evolution is "not getting anywhere". But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. I have lots of stuff to indicate the contrary : that Natural Selection weeds-out non-progressive options from Random changes. We've only scratched the surface of such evidence for upward evolution, apparently programmed to produce better & better adaptations for life in a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. Each step upward costs many individual lives, but overall the progressive beat goes on, after millions of lifetimes.

I get the impression that those-who-see-only-digression-in-evolution like to think that (cautious) optimists are not seeing the obvious. Yet what you see does depend in part on where you look. If you watch TV news, you'll see Russia threatening WWIII, and Covid pestilence killing millions of innocent people around the world. But, if you look out the window, you'll see healthy happy people going about their business, as-if the end of the world is not nigh. However, evolution is a collective holistic process, not a reductive individual Horatio-Alger-rags-to-riches story. Evolution is about Time & Chance, not about me : I could be run over by a truck tomorrow for no apparent reason, but the evolving world will still get somewhere --- onward & upward. :up: :up: :up: :grin:

PS___Long ago, a wise man said, "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."

And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways. — Seppo

You said that you were not going to "waste anymore time" on this thread. But you continue to take boo -hiss pot-shots from the bleachers. Unless you have something positive to contribute, you are wasting everybody's time. But, hey! I'm retired, so I've got plenty of time to waste on the winding road to wisdom. What's your excuse? :joke:

PS___At least TClark is trying to contribute something more than childish retorts & recriminations.

They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. — T Clark

OK. But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot".

The difference between an Accidental Coincidence and an Intentional Pattern is in the continuing consistency. When life-favoring cosmic coincidences piled up in the early 20th century, astronomers and cosmologists said "whoa . . . what's going on here?" Short "streaks" of luck do occur in random sequences, but longer chains imply non-random causation.

The science of statistical Pattern Recognition has methods to distinguish between the gambler's "illusion" of patterns -- that allow Las Vegas casinos to be consistently Lucky, in order to make a reliable non-random profit -- and the statistician's meaningful measurements. But to me, those algorithmic methods are "arcane" & "sophisticated". Presumably, those who "quibble" about those causal chains tell themselves "it's better to be lucky than smart". :nerd:


The Illusion of Randomness :
humans tend to see patterns when, in fact, the results are completely random.
https://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20(old)/4-Randomness.htm

Anthropic Coincidences :
The critical point was well expressed by the noted astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees:
"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life" .
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/06/anthropic-coincidences

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

In other words, you're going to ignore the things people actually say to you, and continue to lie/misconstrue about those responses- good to know... so that I don't waste any further time on you. — Seppo

That's OK. I may have found someone I can dialog with. See above. You can sit on the sidelines and watch as the grownups have a mature conversation. :cool:

As Gnomon just admitted, he doesn't care what is true, he's going to represent the things people have said to him as he sees fit, even if that involves deceit/gross misrepresentation. — Seppo

Now, now. Accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing (Tu quoque) is unfair. :nerd:

"It is not possible for us to know each other except as we manifest ourselves in distorted shadows to the eyes of others."
___Seneca

I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject. — T Clark

OK. What about the "believer" vs "apostate" part?
Back when I posted on another forum, various atheist vs theist arguments usually began with something approximating calm rational arguments, but quickly descended into a name-calling game. And that's what this thread reminded me of. I apologize, if my broad characterization lumped you in with the scandalized rock throwers. :joke:

This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. — T Clark

Yes. I'll give you credit for being one of the few to attempt a rational discussion of a multi-millennial debate. A quick Google search revealed that the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. It's true that the modern ACP theories did rely a lot on the statistical improbability of a long list of implausible mathematical "coincidences" in dimensionless ratios. But statistics are just abstract numbers that must be interpreted into meanings. And the translation into words typically falls into binary categories, with little overlap.

The author of the ACP book spent a whole chapter on the pros & cons -- and the real world consequences -- of those cosmic coincidences. As a non-mathematician, I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. But, if you are more numerically inclined, you can check their numbers for yourself in the book. Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist, well-versed in statistics. However, I was better able to follow the logical philosophical arguments, which again presented both pro & con positions. They also had chapters on Information, Entropy, Randomness, and Computability. And I am only well-informed on the first two.

Obviously, the conclusion -- that those dozens of highly improbable numerical coincidences and initial conditions result from "fine-tuning" -- is an inference that depends on how much creative organizing power you perceive in Randomness. As noted in the Wiki quote below, the Reason or Cause for such improbably fortuitous serendipity is "unknown". But the only reasonable options I know of are Fortuitousness or Prescience. Do you have a better alternative instead of Infinite Odds vs Goal-Directed Intention? If not, we can go on to the next item on a long list : e.g. Cosmological Constant, Inhomogeneity, Isotropy, Inflation, Boundary Conditions, etc. Yet again, I'll have to refer to the experts on the topics that are over my head.

See. We can have a philosophical dialog if we stick to well-defined terms instead of cartoon characters. :wink:

PS___FWIW. As mentioned in the beginning, I have my own objections to traditional Teleological arguments. So, my position is closer to Teleonomy or Eutaxiology.

Fine Tuning Argument :
The characterization of the universe as finely tuned suggests that the occurrence of life in the universe is very sensitive to the values of certain fundamental physical constants and that the observed values are, for some reason, improbable. ___Wikipedia

Fine Tuning Odds :
In The Road to Reality, physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123) . This ratio is vastly
beyond our powers of comprehension
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/List-of-Fine-Tuning-Parameters-Jay-Richards.pdf

Fortuitousness : random accident ; Chance ; Lady Luck

Prescience : the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge. A selection effect

But like I said, sometimes we don't get what we want, and so you should probably adjust your rhetoric to the reactions you actually are getting. — Seppo

Seppo ; this is not addressed to you personally. Because you've made it clear that you are not listening. I'm just mulling over the possible reasons for our failure to communicate. I prefer not to adjust my philosophical argumentation, to "react" with political feuds, as you suggest.

My blog has gone into great detail regarding the pros & cons of the long-running Teleological debate. However, the arguments I presented in favor of a non-theistic Teleonomy are not my own, but those of professional scientists with unorthodox views. Which I assumed would be at least given the benefit of the doubt. But the disbelief & denial were categorical, and I'm not even sure what category that is. So, I don't take the ad hominems and accusations of apostasy personally. They are directed at a some kind of faceless barbarian horde that I may not personally identify with. I expected some science-based arguments against the notion of progress in evolution. Instead, all I get are absolute denials, and two word arguments : " . . . . . because science" , with no evidence or logic.

The retorts don't even respond to anything specific I present, but to a general ideological category such as Atheism vs Theism. So, the nay-sayers have nothing positive to add to the conversation. They just cover their ears and say thru clenched teeth : "wrong, wrong, wrong . . .:" Obviously, I expected at least some minimal philosophical argumentation. But all I get in response is Ideological proclamations. Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on the latest political divisions in philosophy & science. Maybe you can clue me in, to which outcast class you think I belong in. Perhaps a pigeonhole for either the intrinsic functions of Darwinism, or the extrinsic purposes of Theism. Or neither. :cool:


Teleology (from τέλος, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason') or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.[4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic.

Apostasy : the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

I'm sorry you're not provoking the reaction you want, but sometimes we don't get what we want. You really should adjust your rhetorical strategy to the reaction you are getting (whining about imagined outrage from fictional "believers" makes you look the one who is feeling threatened here). You would do well to take some of your own advice. — Seppo

Your apology is mis-directed. My intention was not to be provocative, but the affronted reactions to an alternative explanation for cosmic evolution inadvertently steered the dialog away from philosophical argumentation toward polarized altercation. Someone less experienced might have caved under the negativity. But I'm used to it, since my personal worldview is not mainstream in either a Scientific or Religious sense. Ironically, I get the impression that you think I'm proposing an Anti-Science position, even though the book I referenced was written by professional scientists.

My first post was actually intended to present a scientific alternative to the usual Theistic arguments. So I didn't expect the disgusted "reaction" I got, as-if a skunk had walked into the gentleman's club. The fact that I offered non-scriptural evidence for direction in evolution was dismissed out of hand. So it was not me who resorted to "rhetorical strategy", And I don't feel threatened at all. Just disappointed that a Philosophy Forum can so quickly descend into Sophistry, and finger-pointing. I was hoping for an open-minded dialog, not a debate or diatribe. :cool:
Note -- the smiley means "I'm cool"

Excerpt from original post :
"The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism". — SwampMan

My reply ended with a quote from a prominent scientist :
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein

John Archibald Wheeler (proponent of Anthropic Cosmological Principle):
Over a long, productive scientific life, he was known for his drive to address big, overarching questions in physics, ..
https://phy.princeton.edu/department/history/faculty-history/john-wheeler

IRONIC RACISM

First, notice what I said in the first sentence: "before God created time and space." It is undoubtedly absurd to talk about 'before," or to use any temporal language to describe the period (another temporal term) before God created time and space. — Raymond Rider

The word "before" in this phrase is probably a metaphor drawn from our experience with space-time, and our lack of experience with infinity & eternity. Some scientists also use the same analogy of "before" the Big Bang in their speculations on Multiverses, Many Worlds, and Instant Inflation. We also have no experience with Zero, but we find the notion of nothingness (null) to be useful in Logic and Mathematics.

If time has always existed, then why did God create everything else when He did? Why did He choose that specific point in time to create the universe? — Raymond Rider

The "time before time" problem is also caused by taking metaphors literally. The God of the Torah was sometimes portrayed as a humanoid deity in a parallel universe above the clouds. But other models insist that God is omnipresent & eternal, hence outside the limits of space & time.

So, in order to resolve your language problem, you'll just need to adjust your framing of the issue. But that still doesn't have anything to do with the "existence" problem. Obviously, the Ideal idea of God exists in the minds of most human on Earth. But there the only space-time evidence of God is the creation itself. The logically necessary existence of a Creator is the philosophical argument for a First Cause. And that reasoning remains moot after 2500 years of ideological debate.

Therefore, these paradoxes simply mean that the god of philosophers is a matter of personal opinion, and can't be proven in any objective manner. So, there's no sense in getting riled-up about it one way or the other. Just accept that it's a question for faith, either in scriptures or in your own reasoning. :smile:

No, the responses you're getting in this thread are people distinguishing between pure speculation and things that are actually rooted in evidence. You seem to have a lot invested in this whole image of yourself as the bold truth-teller battling against the dogmatic traditionists... when that's simply not what's happening. — Seppo

No, the reactionary responses on this thread are defending a belief system that is threatened by investigation of its underlying values (e.g. Existentialism) and assumptions (e.g. Materialism). You are the one who is creating a false image of myself, in order to avoid grappling with the ancient philosophical controversies of Teleology and Determinism. I haven't even expressed my personal opinion on the topic, except indirectly, by referring to a book of scientific speculation with a tentative un-traditional interpretation of cosmic evolution..

I'm sure the scandalized rabbis hurled similar dismissive labels against Spinoza as he modestly but resolutely pursued the truth behind their "dogmatic traditions". No, I'm not comparing myself with Spinoza, I'm not a genius or a martyr. But, I do see a resemblance of the "dogmatic traditionalists" on this thread with the defenders of the Faith who anathematized him, while avoiding his calm rational philosophical arguments. It's a good thing you can't hurl rocks over the internet. :joke:


"By the decrees of the Angels and the proclamation of the Saints, we hereby excommunicate, ban, and anathematize Baruch d’Espinoza,"



Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror"

I've already pointed out that the attribution of intentionality or purpose to the universe is not supported by any established empirical results or models- that it is a speculative proposal that some scientists evidently hold as a matter of personal theology or metaphysics. — Seppo

And you know this absolute scientific fact how? Have you ever looked into models of reality that go beyond "established" (settled) opinion? Of course, not all hypothetical speculations are correct, but some may be the heralds of a new paradigm in science. That's why the first rule of both Science and Philosophy is to keep an open mind. And the second rule is to be skeptical of your own settled beliefs.

The responses that I'm getting on this thread, referring to "established" or "settled" Science, fall into the category that Thomas Kuhn called "conservative resistance" to a new worldview. We are indeed in a revolutionary era, that perhaps began with Big Bang & Relativity & Quantum & Information theories. They were stubbornly resisted by believers in the Classical Materialism of 17th & 18th century worldviews. But the aftershocks & implications of those matter-melting revolutions are still unfolding in the 21st century.

For example, Neuroscience and Information science are expanding the boundaries of the establishment belief system of earlier paradigms to include the observer in the observation. We are no longer able to ignore the effects of the observer's beliefs & intentions on the statistical foundations of Reality. That's why hypothetical (speculative) proposals --- to make sense of quantum nonsense and cosmic mysteries --- abound. For instance, Cosmic Inflation was an unproveable hypothesis, intended to avoid the implication of Big Bang as a creation event. Do you want to forbid any questioning of settled opinions, as the Amsterdam Rabbis reacted to Spinoza's "heretical" critique of the Torah? :cool:


The Structure of Scientific Revolutions :
His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. . . . According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. . . . This conservative resistance to the attempted refutation of key theories means that revolutions are not sought except under extreme circumstances.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

The power of intention has the ability to literally change the shape of our brains. This process is known as neuroplasticity - the brain's soft and interchangeable potential, stimulated through repetition of a particular behaviour.
https://www.balance-festival.com/Journal/February-2019/The-Powerful-Science-Behind-Setting-Intentions

Why is speculation forbidden in science? :
Speculation is not completely forbidden in science. In fact, used at the proper stage of science (hypothesis-forming), clever speculation can be quite useful.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/27/why-is-speculation-forbidden-in-science/

Cosmic Inflation? :
A final question lies at the very borderline of science, but has recently become a subject of scientific speculation and even detailed model-building: How and why did the big bang occur? Is it possible to understand, in scientific terms, the creation of a universe ex nihilo (from nothing)?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/cosmic-inflation

And what does this mundane pool analogy tell of the eternal? — Hanover

The analogy points to how we distinguish intentional patterns from random activity : by rational inference from physical evidence. If you imagine the unknown Intender as the Bible-god, that's your prerogative. But. I don't.

The authors of the book I reviewed went into great detail to show how they arrived at the conclusion of premeditated creation behind the mathematical patterns of physical reality. A court of law uses the same reasoning to decide between an accidental death and intentional murder. But such inference cannot identify the one who did the planning, unless there is circumstantial evidence, such as blood stains or powder burns on the accused.

That's why the authors provide a trail of evidence pointing to an unknown perpetrator that is not in the courtroom, hence outside the system of space-time. They didn't pretend to know the unknowable. They just projected the trail of evidence into the future, to imply that the full intention has not yet been achieved. So the Cause of the creative pattern is still at large. :nerd:


legal definition of intent :
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design;
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com › intent

This is baloney. Read some of his papers. They are rigorous and heavily mathematical. Even though he did not do experiments himself, this work has been tested over and over and found to be correct. — T Clark

I didn't say that Einstein was "incorrect", I merely noted that he was a theoretical scientist instead of an empirical researcher. So, I agree with the second part of your reply. But, the first part completely missed my point. Smells like raw sausage. Yum! :joke: