Can human things be described by having a cause that is neither nature nor nurture? If so, what? — TiredThinker

Yes. Human nature is both Natural and Cultural. That's the basis of my personal BothAnd philosophy. It's a holistic view of Causation. That's because, ultimately, the First Cause is Singular. :smile:

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Buddhism is just realism.

The author claims that Buddhism's four noble truths and eightfold path lead to a life in accordance with nature. In a manner, a person is more in correspondence with the laws of causality in nature with the natural dispositions of human nature in mind. — Shawn

Another book compares Buddhism with pragmatic Stoicism. In my review of Brian Morris' Buddhist Metaphysics, I noted that, "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." Later, he said, “Enlightenment as awareness suggests a common-sense realism”.[my emphasis] So, take your pick. Buddhism can be treated as romantic mysticism or as practical self-help advice. :smile:

Buddhist Metaphysics :
Atheistic Spirituality?
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page21.html

The theory that makes most sense to me - not my theory - is that in a many-party system, the least successful parties tend to evaporate, their voters migrating to one or more of the more successful parties. — tim wood

I'm currently reading a novel that describes British politics prior to WWII. And it illustrates the internal divisions of the Left wing --- between A> Traditional Middle-class Liberals, B> the lower-class Labour Party, and C> the upstart Communist Party. Their dithering & quibbling allowed the Conservative upper-class Royalist Party (Lords) to ignore ominous German & Russian aggression. Eventually, allowing Britain to be sucked into the hostilities after it was almost too late to stop the partitioning of Europe between Fascist & Communist governments. It took a holocaust, and near annihilation of Britain, for them to put aside their partisanship, and jump into the middle of the fray, in defense of Home & Hearth, both Hovel and Castle. :meh:

PS__The modest "virtue" of weak multi-party rule, compared with strong dictatorships, is that most official policies are watered-down from my-way-or-the-highway extremism to namby-pamby moderation. Thereby maintaining a dynamic state of peace & stability. But for those who feel their backs are against the wall, moderation is capitulation. Before the rise of Democracy there was only one party : one-man-rule. That kept things simple, but change (progress for some) could only be achieved by violent overthrow (win-lose), as in the Game of Thrones. The "successful party" was the one that could impose its will on the others (e.g. the one with the most dragons). The modern alternative is to allow all parties to win a little here & there. A win-win political strategy. :blush:

I'm not sure if I'd call it to become religionized. In a way it's the opposite, people who believed in the government/politics/democracy having their faith in the system erased. — ssu

Yes. I was using the notion of "Religion" loosely, to refer to the communal sense of us-versus-them, not to any particular god-model. For example, Hitler was not literally worshipped as a god, but he was exalted as "der Fuhrer", leader of the Aryan "Folk" (chosen people). In a similar manner, the dictator of North Korea is addressed, not as a functionary Prime Minister, but as "dear leader" or "father of the people", reflecting the pre-communism Emperor worship. :smile:

PS__This thread reminded me of another parallel between Political and Religious societies. Both require some means of maintaining loyalty to the sovereignty of the realm. In modern literate establishments, that central authority is typically a written Constitution or Bible. In a constitutional political system, Police are required to regulate ethical behavior. And a biblical social system must have priests to interpret the laws and to regulate moral behavior.

In both cases, a systemic bias toward either common Law or individual Freedom can affect the justice & fairness of the organization. Secret police and Inquisition courts are inherently inclined toward defense of the ruling regime. But "defunded police" and lax courts tend toward anarchy and system collapse. Hence, the ongoing struggle between too-much and not-enough integrity of the Body Politic. In over-simplified terms, we call it Conservative versus Liberal politics. :cool:

No wonder skeptical arguments, skepticism leading the way in our expeditions into possibility space, — TheMadFool

In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Raymond Tallis explores the notion he calls "post-tensed time". He's referring to our ability to address Possible time, which goes beyond the here & now. He says, "Beasts, unlike humans, live ahistorically, without a sense of extended time". But then he notes, "there is a consensus among physicists, and philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists, that while tenseless time is real, tensed time is not". By that he means that only "now" is real, so past & future are merely Potential & Historical.

He later says, "if however, we accept that there are things in the world that lie outside of what can be accommodated in physical science --- most obviously those things that are imported into the world by conscious beings". And I place those things-that-are-not-real (i.e. Ideal) under the philosophical category of Meta-Physics. Ironically, for a philosophy forum, I often get expressions of incomprehension when I apply the label "metaphysics" to Potentials and Possibilities. Apparently, that's what Tallis was referring to as "philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists" I call it simply philosophical "Physics Envy" : if it ain't physical (here & now) it ain't worth talking about.

Tallis goes on to say, "Calendars and the like are a formalization . . . of tensed time, so they depend on modes of temporality not found objectively in nature". He also says of Einstein, probably referring to the notion of Block Time, saying "While he accepted that past, present and future must be counted by physicists as illusions, . . . . he expressed regret that 'now', and consequently the difference between past and future, could not be grasped by physics". Moreover, such conceptual non-things cannot be grasped by philosophers whose skepticism is biased by Physics Envy. To them, such meta-physical modes of being are im-possible. :joke:

I was wondering whether the trade-off is worth it or even if it's "possible" to simply cease and desist investigating the world of possibilities. — TheMadFool

Most animals probably don't have a problem with possibilities. Generally, they just accept the world as it is. But hungry predators have to look ahead of here & now, in order to explore the possibilities around the next bend. And humans are basically weak predators, who have to rely on mental powers more than physical tools. So, they extend their grasp & vision with artificial senses, as far as they go. But, they don't stop there, because they have one sense that is ultimately more powerful than fangs & claws : Reasoning Ability. That's the power to go-beyond the Physical-what-is into the Meta-physical-what-might-be.

Therefore, human Reason is a tool or weapon that allows us to project our minds into the imaginary world of Possibility, Potential, and Probability. And exploration of that invisible statistical realm is what we call Philosophy, Science, and Religion. Unfortunately, there are risks in that immaterial sphere too. Primarily, the chance of treating fake falsehoods as actual factual. What appears to our mind's eye as solid ground might be a pit-fall. Which is why rational predatory humans have developed the shield of Skepticism, to protect them from becoming some other probing predator's prey.

However, if we cease & desist from exploring Possibilities, we run the risk of knowledge starvation. Apparently, those who post on this forum know what it's like for their mental ribs to stick-out. So, we stick our predatory necks out into meta-physical (not yet real) possibilities, even as our skeptical senses are alert for an ambush. But some of us have been so traumatized from being entrapped by attractive "truths" that turned out to be faith-bait, that we fear to venture into the unknown territory of beyond-physical-reality. Such careful Cynicism is understandable, but could be detrimental to our philosophical nourishment. :gasp:

PS__ Sorry, I got carried away with a Meta-physical Metaphor. :joke:

ALLURING LIES :

The worst option is that democracy is replaced by guns without any trace to a democratic system. — ssu

I suspect that normally apolitical people become radically politicized when something they hold dear is threatened. That's when ordinary politics becomes religionized --- that is, sacred enough to kill for.. But Left and Right hold different things sacred. So a democratic society must somehow bow to all gods, and honor all belief systems, and avoid dishonoring any particular sacred cow.

Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult in a multi-cultural society. Classical Rome achieved that balance by equal treatment of all religions, except for the unifying official Roman religion of Emperor divinity. But, that balance was upset when Christianity became the official religion of the empire. Because monotheism is typically intolerant of "Other" gods. And that political imbalance led to the "fall of Rome".

In our day, even non-theistic religions like Fascism & Communism have become the "other gods" in some cases. That's because they demand the same kind of loyalty to nation or party, that used to be reserved for the gods of chosen people. Just as patriotic young men have always taken-up weapons in defense of home, or tribe, or city, or fatherland, they now replace democratic tolerance with death-dealing arguments ; "bow the knee or die". So, somehow, we must find a way to get back to pragmatic mundane politics, and away from all-or nothing idealistic partisanship. Perhaps a new national non-religion that accepts all gods and sacred cows. :cool:

PS__That's not a new idea. It was tried in post-revolution France : the Cult of the Supreme Being. It was a philosophical rational religion that only appealed to a minority of the populace. Apparently, human nature is not yet ready for a philosophical rational political system like Democracy.

Nevertheless, why are there just two parties in the US? — Inplainsight

I suppose it's mostly tradition, derived from the British Parliament within a monarchy, where the debating room had only two opposing sides : Left and Right. Later democracies probably learned that a two-party system forces moderates to choose a side : one extreme or the other -- the lesser of two evils. But, multi-party systems face the same problem, finding an acceptable middle ground within a diversity of opinion. Fortunately, as long as the extremists are roughly equal in power, most contests will result in an approximation of the moderate position. Unfortunately, all too often, one extreme is more ruthless (don't play fair) than the other : e.g. the extreme patriotism of Hitler's National Socialism and Trump's America First ; or the impractical (extreme idealism) ideology of Communism.. :cool:

-"Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind?"
Similar ontology is shared by all biological properties i.e. digestion, mitosis, photosynthesis,homeostasis etc. — Nickolasgaspar

I distinguish between physical properties (measurable) and ontological essence (rational). Integrated Information Theory is an attempt to measure mental qualities in terms of Phi. But Phi only measures the degree of integration of a system (an analogue of wholeness), but not Mind or Consciousness directly. And, just as a physical circuit is necessary to convert Voltage into Amperage, information feedback loops are essential to Minds. Some IIT advocates have proposed a Consciousness Meter, but implementing that idea is beyond current capabilities. It's not as easy to measure a subjective quality, as an objective property.

Digestion is comparable to Thinking only in the sense that both refer to holistic system functions instead of particular physical parts. However, Digestion produces measurable physical effects, while Thinking produces invisible images in the Cartesian Theater we call a Mind. Like all metaphors, the CT is not real, but ideal ; not physical, but meta-physical. If mental images & thoughts were physical, we wouldn't need metaphors to communicate them.

-Of course! because Science in general doesn't deal with "Why" teleological questions. . . . The real question is How the brain achieves the production of mind — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Mapping physical causal paths, may give you a picture of How, but not the Why of the final output. The complexity & chaos (randomness) of brain systems tend to blur the map near the fringes "where be dragons". Ideas in a Mind are teleological in the sense that they point toward something that is not an actual thing, not present, not yet real. Terrence Deacon calls that meta-physical function “aboutness”.

-Yes we can imagine anything. Those imaginative thoughts are the product of previous facts about reality being put together in a different way while ignoring empirical limitations and logic — Nickolasgaspar

That is indeed the model that most Consciousness researches are working with. But "empirical limitations" and logical loops tend to frustrate their attempts to force Minds to fit the model. Somehow, Mind is able to by-pass physical limitations (e.g. Lucid Dreaming), but not Logic in the universal sense. Contrary to the old wive's tale, if my flying dream-self crashes, I won't wake up dead. (I've tried it) You might say that Mind-Logic “transcends” Physical-Logic. Which also touches on the question of subjective FreeWill versus objective Determinism.

That is nothing special in my opinion. Our brain allows those mental models to arise, but those brains need to be exposed to stimuli from early age. Without empirical input a mind is unable to be shaped and produce anything. — Nickolasgaspar

True. But irrelevant to the philosophical problem of Meta-Physics. And I have answered that question in my personal worldview of Enformationism. The “problem” derives from an outdated Dualistic concept of Matter & Mind. But the emerging concept of Information is Monistic, in that the single power-to-enform comes in two forms : Physical (Matter) and Meta-Physical (Mind). I won't go into how I arrived at that conclusion in this post, but it's laid-out in my website. Information is a shape-shifter, which can transform from Energy into Matter into Mind. That may sound like non-sense in a Physicalist belief system, but not from a Fundamental-Information perspective. This recent book presents a physicist's “Information Theoretic Ontology” :
Information-Consciousness-Reality :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html
Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

" But how can matter imagine anything?""
-What do you mean? . . . .. Its the function and structure of the system made from matter that can produce those properties, — Nickolasgaspar

It's easy to say that Imagination is just the output of a mechanical process. But not so easy to prove it. No machine we have constructed, including super-computers, has imagined anything like E=MC^2. Even their poetry is derivative and imitative. That's because a Whole is defined as more-than the sum of its parts. So the question remains, what is that "more than", the quality of wholeness, integrity, identity, unity? It's the difference between Data and Meaning.

So, Imagination is more-than just chemicals or neurons. Instead, it's the function of a whole System. Function is teleological and purposeful. It has the quality of Aboutness.
Function : 1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.

-Sure, I was referring to transcendent metaphysics, where the claims ignore and are in direct conflict with established epistemology. Here is where the logical chain snaps. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. But even sober scientists can't resist speculating beyond established knowledge. As in Multiverse theories, the best they can do is to extend established knowledge into the future, beyond the scope of empirical confirmation. And it's well established that projecting the current state into the future soon "snaps" the logical chain by turning it into randomized mush.

-I don't know what it means for Metaphysics to be left behind. — Nickolasgaspar

Rejection of Theology is why Post-Enlightenment Era scientists abandoned all attempts to gain useful knowledge via meta-physical means. But, 21st century science has become more & more meta-physical as the old models of reality crumble under the gravity of Quantum weirdness, and the BB beginning of reality put a space-time limit on Nature. Even our units of Quanta are now more mathematical than physical : Fields instead of Atoms ; Virtual instead of Real particles.

Since when Descriptive Formulations of Science (based on Methodological Naturalism) has become "materialistic"? — Nickolasgaspar

Since the fundamental bits of Matter (atoms) were ground into the mathematical mush of Wave Functions. The original basis of Atomism was philosophical instead of empirical. And the foundations of modern physics are beginning to sound more philosophical than empirical. Scientists still use concrete metaphors to illustrate quantum abstractions. And their assumptions about Nature remain under the influence of common-sense Materialism.
“Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted.”

demonize our current frameworks by calling them "materialistic", — Nickolasgaspar

Would you prefer to call our modern epistemology “Physicalism” or “Naturalism”? Materialism is not demonic, it's just outdated in an era of Relativity and Quantum Theory (which only appears quantized after continuous Waves “decompose” into Particles). Nature has become less mechanical & methodical and more spontaneous & statistical in this post-classical era. The post-enlightenment Mechanical “framework” is gradually giving way to a more Organic model. So, I don't “demonize” the older frameworks. Instead, I just categorize some of them as “misplaced Materialism”, which is similar to “misplaced Concreteness” (reification of abstractions).

Scientists (without any distinction) are still disdainful of feckless philosophy for the same reasons. — Nickolasgaspar

My point about a distinction between Empirical Science and Theoretical Science is that the cutting edge of science today (e.g. String Theory) is completely theoretical (mathematical), and not subject to being “verified empirically”. Hence, it is indistinguishable from feckless philosophy.

-So what do you suggest? — Nickolasgaspar

I suggest that we update our mental models of Nature and Reality to include their Non-Physical aspects. And post-Shannon Information Theory is one way to do that.

I am not sure about your point in this distinction you are making. Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar

The old Atomic & Materialistic models left no place for sub-atomic (quarks) and statistical aspects of Reality. Until recently, empirical Science dealt only with here & now Actuality. But, now they are forced to use statistical methods to model Reality. Potential, like Probability & Possibility, refers to that which is not here & now. Instead of empirical observations, they must use gambling odds. The once-firm foundations of Reality were imagined as Absolute & Actual, but now they are viewed as Relative & Potential. Fortunately, post-Shannon Information Theory can deal with both sides of the Natural coin.

Again I don't get your argument.....that which is not quantifiable for you is "metaphysical". And how do you use the word potential? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Qualia are not quantifiable. And Statistical is only Potentially Real. So, I use “potential” according to Aristotle's usage : “a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential [statistical probability] does exist.” [my bracket] So, Potential existence is equivalent to Plato's Ideal Forms. The “properties” of real things (e.g. red of an apple) exist only in the minds of observers. And I call that Mind-stuff “meta-physical” instead of “physical”. :nerd:

PS__Obviously, I have a philosophical axe-to-grind. But, since it's based on a new paradigm and somewhat counter-intuitive (like Quantum Theory and Block Time) it can't be summarized in one post.

What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

PPS__ I have enjoyed the mental exercise (despite the meta-physical sweat) of responding to your stimulating questions. :smile:

-Correct The first word refers to claims that are beyond our current knowledge and the second refers to claims that are Above nature. — Nickolasgaspar

That's a practical way to think of Meta-Physics : as conjectures beyond current knowledge. And those projections from past evidence into unknown territory is how we discover new information. But to project into unknowable realms is risky. Whatever we find may or may not be true, and we'll never know. Yet, some are willing to take that chance, and even to accept attractive-but-ify ideas on faith.

Well metaphysics is ANY claim that makes hypotheses beyond our current knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Whenever an empirical scientist proposes a hypothesis, he's doing Meta-physics. And that's the domain of Philosophy. However, it's necessary to push the bounds of knowledge, in order to make progress. But then, it's the job of Science to confirm those reasonable probability estimates.

-Well that is not metaphysics for Neuroscience. The Mind is what the brain produces. — Nickolasgaspar

Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind? Empirical neuroscience has no answer for the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness : Brains are subject to physical laws, but what are the limits of Minds? It seems that, in imagination, anything goes. In dreams, I can fly. But how can matter imagine anything?

-Today we identify such "transcendent" type of metaphysics as pseudo philosophy when our new data do not offer evidence for such hypotheses. — Nickolasgaspar

All Meta-Physics is "transcendent" in the sense of going-beyond known physics. If our hypotheses don't explore unknown territory, they are merely mundane applied knowledge. As long as our conjectures extend an unbroken logical chain, we can look for the evidence later.

PHilosophical science already exists in Science. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, but the Enlightenment Renaissance of Greek philosophy, left Metaphysics behind because of its association with Scholastic Theology. But today, the era of Information and Quantum and Big Bang Theories have undermined the outdated Materialistic Atomic theory, and Self-existent World assumptions. The result is that the cutting edge of science is mostly groping around in the meta-physical territory of mathematical fields and multi-dimensional strings of ????

The philosophical endeavor that tries to understand and glue new data, old epistemology or philosophy with new philosophical frameworks through reasoning is labeled Metaphysics. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. That's the difference between empirical Science (physics) and theoretical Science (philosophy). 20th century Empirical scientists were often disdainful of feckless philosophy, because instead of physical evidence it relies on metaphysical reasoning. Yet in the 21st century, physical evidence in the quantum and cosmic realms is harder to come by.

-I don't find such ideas useful because we humans have shown that we are really bad in our ontology. Great examples are Alchemists wasting resources for ages to chemically produce valuable metals, — Nickolasgaspar

The distinction between Potential & Actual has become essential to science again. For example, 20th century Quantum "particles" and now labeled "wave functions" and "virtual particles". A virtual particle is not Actual, but merely Potential until some perturbation causes the metaphorical collapse of the wave function.

-It isn't a metaphysical notion from the moment it is observed and can be quantified in everyday phenomena. Stored energy is the potential to produce work...so its nothing metaphysical about it. i.e. As a cyclist I understand the potential energy I gather when climbing a hill. — Nickolasgaspar

In my vocabulary, Voltage (Potential) is Meta-physical because it is not Actual or measurable. Voltage is merely a promise of Amperage. :smile:

I don't think there is any way to find agreement between our two positions. — T Clark

So, there's no such thing as Meta-Physical? Hence no need for philosophical terms like Qualia and Quanta? If so, why do we keep trying to split Nature into two different philosophical categories? Are philosophers just frustrated scientists, trying to make their wordy theories seem applicable to the real world? Why then is Dualism so attractive to most non-philosophers? :cool:

PS__my worldview is ultimately Monistic, not Dualistic. If we could agree on that Unity, all disagreements would disappear.

PPS__ I apologize for not just going away quietly, but I think this topic is essential. Plus, I really get into this unreal stuff. :joke:

No it doesn't mean "outside physics".
That would be the term "υπερφυσικός" or supernatural (beyond nature). — Nickolasgaspar

On this forum, I've been struggling to separate "Metaphysics" from its "Supernatural" heritage in Western Religion. That's why I have suggested going back beyond (meta-) Christian Theology to see what non-religious Aristotle was actually talking about. As you noted, it certainly wasn't about anything supernatural or spooky, but about making a philosophical distinction between Qualia & Quanta, between Potential & Actual, and betwixt Cause & Effect. Unfortunately, to this day we still portray Mind metaphorically as a Brain, which leads some to think that only Matter matters for thinking.

His metaphysical category could be interpreted as "more comprehensive" or even "transcendent", in the sense that he thought of Philosophy as going "beyond" the Space-Time & Thermodynamic boundary of Physics into the realm of Mind & Ideas, that are only limited by Logical laws. Thus, adding Philosophical science to Physical science. Aristotle even tried to fit Plato's ideal Forms into physical Shapes, by insisting that Forms do not exist independently of Things.

And that is equivalent to the notion -- common among Information scientists -- that what we now call "Information", is physical, in the sense of embodied ideas. But, in my holistic view, Information is both Physical (effect) and Meta-Physical (cause). That's a delicate distinction, but it could clear-up millennia of misunderstanding in Philosophy and Science. :nerd:

Meta- :
Original Greek meaning — Meta (from the Greek μετά, meta, meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix meaning "more comprehensive" or "transcending."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

Potential :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist. .
Note -- even physical science finds the meta-physical notion of not-yet-real Potential to be useful in the Real world. For example, the Voltage of a battery is nothing-but Static Potential, until it is actualized into Active Amperage. We can't see or touch meta-physical Potential with our senses, but we can imagine it with our minds.

MIND and/or MATTER?
EITHER / OR divisive (reductive)
BOTH - AND comprehensive (holistic)

I'm not frustrated, I just think your understanding and use of the word "metaphysics" is too different from mine for us to have a fruitful discussion now. — T Clark

Yes. But such misunderstandings are the fodder for Philosophy. Only in Politics would it lead to retreat or attack.

That's why I suggested that we switch to some alternative words, such as "non-physical". Does a distinction between Physical and Non-physical compute in your Reality? Or do you lump Qualities and Properties together under the heading of Physical? Are such notions Natural or Supernatural (or Artificial) ; are they Real or Ideal, or what? What synonyms of Metaphysical would you prefer? :smile:

PS___See the post by Nickolasgaspar above

Isn't this more than 'Nothing'. Isn't it still a something in some kind of realm as above in that realm's level as tangible to that realm but not to ours? — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but it's a mental something (subjective idea, not objective object). So such abstract universals as G*D or TAO don't fall under the category of physical scientific things. Instead, they are metaphysical philosophical non-things. Knowable, but non-tangible. Holistic all-things, but not reductive things. More than nothing, in the sense that Infinity is more than nothing. :smile:

Thing :
1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

"The Way" is more than the pavement.

I think you and I have taken this as far as we can for now. — T Clark

I'm sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of progress on this perennial philosophical stalemate. But, this topic is labeled "what is metaphysics. yet again". So, I think it's essential that we at least agree on a clear distinction between "Physics" and "Metaphysics". Otherwise, we'll never find any common ground for a rational discussion. And "physical" versus "mental" seems to be the closest to a black & white dichotomy. Of course, in philosophy, the setup is seldom that simple. But, if we can begin there, perhaps we can chip away at any other obstacles to mutual understanding.

I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine, reviewing a book about four "linguistic" philosophers, including Wittgenstein and Heidegger. The reviewer said that they had one thing in common : "the belief that mistaken assumptions about language are the wellsprings of error in philosophy". And I think most dictionary definitions of the term "Metaphysics" mainly reflect medieval Christian theologian usage of that word --- not Aristotle's original intention for his "first philosophy". That's why I contend that most dictionaries simply repeat those "mistaken assumptions" derived from blending Greek philosophy with Christian theology.

The article goes on to quote Heidegger : "we cannot he argues, reduce philosophy's biggest question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?" to any system of knowledge, because it is a question that informs every such question". Note the word "informs". Does it refer to a physical phase change. or to a non-physical transfer of Meaning rather than Matter? That is the distinction underlying my personal definition of "Meta-Physics". Although I like the hyphenated term, for it's symmetrical metaphorical implications, I also sometimes substitute "Non-Physics" in order to avoid the theological baggage of "metaphysics". Do you accept that there are non-physical aspects of the world? If not, this thread will be at an impasse.

I harp on the not-physical implications of "Meta-Physics" in order to distinguish a Philosophical concept from a Scientific topic. Empirical Scientists don't usually concern themselves with abstract concepts, such as Being and Ontology. But posters on this forum often try to place "metaphysics" under the umbrella of physical science, in order to avoid its spiritual implications. Which is why I point-out the second dictionary definition : "abstract theory with no basis in reality." ___Oxford. Can we simply agree that "abstractions" are not Real, but Ideal --- existing only in abstract Minds instead of concrete Brains? :cool:

Abstract and concrete :
In metaphysics, the distinction between abstract and concrete refers to a divide between two types of entities. Many philosophers hold that this difference has fundamental metaphysical significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

I don't believe your understanding that all mental phenomena are considered metaphysical is consistent with any generally accepted definition of the word. — T Clark

I agree. That's why I went back (meta-), beyond medieval theologians, to see what Aristotle was talking about in his second volume. The first volume, Physics, was about physical things (Quanta ; Science), but the second volume, "Metaphysics", was about non-physical concepts (Qualia ; Philosophy), such as abstractions, wisdom, ideas, meanings, attitudes, relationships, primary causes, etc . . .

Yes, I know Aristotle didn't use that term, but when spelled with a hyphen, "Meta-Physics" denotes the practical distinction between material Science and mental Philosophy : that which is beyond the scope of physical examination, but is amenable to rational scrutiny. So, that's how I derived a unique non-dictionary definition of "Meta-Physics" for my Enformationism thesis :cool:


What is metaphysics according to Aristotle? "
Summary Metaphysics. What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotle/section7/

It remains as the physical One; its rearrangements are temporary; it doesn't make new substances; it is ever itself. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like the TAO, or LOGOS, to which I compare my G*D concept. However, like Energy, G*D is not a physical object, but a functional process or flow. It's an "essence" not a physical substance. It's ineffable ; so you can't point to it and say "there it is". It's a holistic pattern of relationships, not an individual thing ; so you can know about it, but not see it. Therefore, as a system, I call it "Meta-Physical", in the sense that it is more than the sum of its physical parts. :smile:

TAO : The Tao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the Universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the Universe balanced.
In all its uses, the Tao is considered to have ineffable qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Since, with no beginning, it ne’er became;
Thus no Alif through Ye: it’s e’er the same. — PoeticUniverse

That's why I distinguish the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS from the space-time bubble of the physical temporal world :
First begat in a Bang, destined to die in a Sigh . . . . . :cool:

Ideas and opinions are not "by definition" metaphysical. — T Clark

Of course, ideas & opinions have a physical substrate, but the neurons themselves are meaningless. So, my comment was directed at the subjective meaning, not the objective container. If ideas were physical, mind-reading might be as simple as an MRI readout, or drinking a brain cocktail. Therefore, by my definition (see below), Ideas are literally non-physical. Brain is an information processor, but Mind is the meaningful output. :nerd:

PS__I just read an article about Arc proteins in the human brain, which are descendants of ancient viruses, and are essential for retention of long-term memories, even though the physical proteins are destroyed after a short "life-cycle". Somehow the memories are passed along to the next generation of Arc protein. Just as viruses are not alive, technically, these lumps of protoplasm are not ideas or memories --- but merely temporary containers for bits of information.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/all-your-memories-are-stored-by-one-weird-ancient-molecule?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Substrate : an underlying substance or layer. That which supports something.

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

IS THIS WHAT A MEMORY LOOKS LIKE ?
https://virtuul.com/news/how-viruses-may-have-shaped-the-human-brain/

There is an objective reality independent of human thought.
Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction.
Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere.
There is no absolute point of view or scale.
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark

Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. But are they "rules" or "laws" governing subjective reality? That's what I thought you meant. :smile:

That's fine for some, but it's not 'God'; it's just the simple basis of the more complex as the Ground of Determination. — PoeticUniverse

Of course. That's the point of the Multiverse hypothesis. Instead of a First Cause, it's a more-of-the-same-forever infinite (no beginning or end) chain-of-causation --- or a cosmic Conga Line of turtles, if you prefer a more concrete image. :wink:

? The one and only basis remains; no regress. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? :chin:

Einstein's discovery of the quantum discreteness of photons proved true, so it was not outlandish. — PoeticUniverse

True. But at the time it sounded unorthodox, hence "outlandish" (alien ; foreign) for the wave-propagation orthodoxy of the day. :smile:

Why No One Believed Einstein :
https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/

We do see the mind-fields, and that is all we ever 'see'; they're as maps made in the brain process of consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? What color is yours? Mine is boring beige. :joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)

"why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?"
___Gnomon

Cool video! So the answer is Be Here Now? Don't worry about what was, or will be. Sufficient unto the day . . . . . . .

How come you are always referencing turtles when the buck clearly stops at my One as the base? — PoeticUniverse

The leap-frogging turtle metaphor applies to the implicit infinite regress when an eternal buck-stopping agent is denied. In religious arguments it's common to be challenged with "so who created your God?". But the question only makes sense if the deity is subject to the limitations of space-time and matter-energy. Most Christians have no problem answering with "my God is eternal and self-existent". But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time.

However, if your hypothetical One is -- like my ALL -- non-physical, then the turtle-cycle would be unnecessary. And that's why my hypothetical God-substitute is defined as "Ideal" instead of "Real", Which in traditional religious terms would be "Spiritual" instead of "Physical". It's my contention that the Jewish concept of "Spirit" was equivalent to the Greek notion of "Ideal". And both seemed to be referring to the mysterious force in Nature that we now call causal "Energy". It's invisible & intangible, and physical only in that it has observable effects on Matter. Infinite Potential covers all possibilities at once, with no need for physical cycles of reproduction or creation. Hence, the First Cause is like an eternal inexhaustible battery of pent-up energy that is loosed upon the world, only when a feedback circuit is made -- a space-time cycle.

As a similar non-physical notion, Einstein surprised many folks when he declared that Gravity was not a real force. Because everybody knew from personal experience that gravity pulls on real bodies with invisible rope. Even worse, his radical theory pictured Gravity as "warped space". Which makes as much sense as "curved nothingness". But pragmatic scientists eventually learned to go along with that blasphemy against Lord Newton. Yet, Alfred was not done with knocking the props out from classical physics. His outlandish ideas opened the door to Quantum Theory, which like quicksand has undermined the ancient Atomic Theory with invisible intangible Mathematical Fields as the fundamental reality of Physics.

Therefore, as a pragmatic idealist, I have learned to accommodate all those radical paradigm shifts, by accepting the view of an increasing number of physicists and cosmologists, that even those fundamental fields consist of nothing but Information. Which is that same "stuff" that used to exist only in metaphysical Minds. And now even the physical Brains that mysteriously generate invisible mind-fields are ultimately composed of, not things per se, but incorporeal relationships between things. In Math, we call those invisible geometric links "ratios". Which ironically are what we "know" only with our rational power of Reason.Thus, I conclude that the "One", the "All", the "First Cause", the "buck-stopper" is simply the Eternal Enformer. :nerd:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ONE, ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Information :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting it via rational inference
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

TWO SIDES OF SAME COIN

You have recognized the multiverse. That accords well. . . .
You have recognized the block multiverse. That is the answer! Accords well with timeless eternalism. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser.

Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS.

That's why I interpret "Block Time" in terms of Aristotelian Potential, the notion of infinite possibility, which requires a trigger (First Cause) to actualize. Potential is not Real, but merely Ideal, until an intentional directional choice causes something specific to actualize. This is not magic, but similar to a physical phase change, such as liquid water to solid ice. The potential for solidity was always there in H2O, but an external trigger causes the change from Possible to Actual. Besides, as you pointed out : "Thus, all possible universes are real in the block multiverse, as timeless and all done, finished, most of them not having life or being outright flops".

The Materialism, Reductionism, Physicalism worldview leaves no role for Philosophy. In which case, this forum is a monumental waste of time, since we typically discuss things that are not things, but possibilities ; not actual or physical, hence unverifiable --- only arguable. Terence Green, in Philosophy Now, regarding A.J. Ayer and Logical Positivism says : "this is philosophy as a barren wasteland --- stripped of all that philosophy had . . . . traditionally been concerned with : why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?". Logical Positivism has no answer for such illogical questions. Logic is about mechanical formal processes, but human Reason is about meaningful Forms (potential desiderata). Again, Green says about scientific Logical Positivism, "it can't deal with statements such as 'God exists'.". :nerd:


Desiderata : something that is needed or wanted. but does not yet exist.

Inert Potential : the voltage of an electric battery is simply a promise of future current. The promise is only fulfilled after some outside force completes the circuit, allowing useful current to flow. Eternal Ideal Potential likewise requires a Cause (intentional choice) to allow it to actualize into reality.

So, 'Nothing' does not challenge 'God', but the necessity of a single, simple base physical substance does, in that it required no creation. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. From your Physicalist perspective, "God" is No-Thing. But in my Enformationism view, G*D is Every-Thing, and is necessarily self-existent. Even a tower-of-turtles multiverse would have to be self-created in order to lay the foundation for the tower *1. :smile:

This physical information, to speak of it in a holistic way that you might like, can operate without a programmer and her problematic regress… — PoeticUniverse

Yes. But in my thesis G*D is both Programmer and Program, both Creator and Creation, both Sculptor and Marble. This is the holistic worldview of PanEnDeism (all in god). And it's only reasonable if ALL is omni-potential Information -- both the power-to-enform and the substance enformed ; both Mind and Matter. Similar to Spinoza's "universal substance", except updated to allow for a Big Bang beginning. :halo:

Panendeism holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time,
https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Panendeism

The Great 'IS' that is the monistic One would already have all possible realities of universes in it in a superposition, as it being Everything since what has no beginning can't have a direction inputted to it.
This is as a multi-verse, — PoeticUniverse

Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition. In Quantum Physics that trigger is a measurement (technically, the decision of what to measure). No-Thing could not make such a fateful choice, but Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds. And that essential "something" is what I call "Teleological Intention" (purpose ; design). Unfortunately, we time-bound creatures don't know the intended End of evolution. So, the term Eutaxiological may be more appropriate than "Teleological". Like the hero in the movie Tron, we don't know how the game will end, but we are motivated to win, i.e. to survive long enough to have an impact on the outcome. :sweat:

Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
Note -- Superposition of a world-creating system can be in all possible states (infinity) and all possible times (eternity) until a non-random intention is chosen. How? In Infinity/Eternity all things are possible. :brow:

Teleological :
Purpose-driven evolution, as opposed to Eutaxiological, meaning simply that evolution must have had a First Cause, even if the Final Cause (purpose) is unknown.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page12.html

Of course, in any universe that creates thinking life, such as in ours, the thinkers would wonder how such an apparently fine-tuned marvel could have happened. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. And here's how that could have happened. :nerd:

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
“mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

*1 Tower of Turtles -- an infinite regress of causation

This is also what doomed Decartes’ distinct mental and physical realms: they couldn’t exchange energy.
The addition of a ‘non physical’ or 'intangible' only enlarges the question to produce a regress. — PoeticUniverse

As usual, your material-mind arguments are reasonable . . . from the classical Physicalism perspective. Through that ground-glass lens, only the physical senses make sense. And that's probably how non-rational animals see their world. Fortunately for reasonable people, theoretical Philosophy, unlike empirical Science, is not limited to the 5 senses (perception) for information (useful knowledge) about the world. Instead, it enlarges the scope of investigation by using the sixth sense of Rational Inference (conception). Only a rational mind can deal with the non-physical mysteries of existence, such as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. Physicalists can't see Consciousness, because they are looking through the transparent lens of Sentience.

By that meta-physical means, we now know how Mental (Information) and Physical (Matter) can exchange energy. And I'm not talking about reductive Shannon Information (digital bits), but holistic Conscious Information (holistic semantic meaning). From that angle, the Mental & Physical realms are distinct philosophical categories, while empirical Science has no category for the Mental aspects of the world. But if Information is indeed fundamental, as some physicists now infer, then Matter & Energy can be reduced to a single universal (monistic) substance : Information -- the power to transform. Pace Descartes *1.

Thus, the modern scope of Quantum & Information physics has been enlarged to encompass both the Mental (non-physical) and Material (physical) aspects of the real world. And to eliminate the need for an infinite regress of physical worlds, to explain how our cosmic domain could be born from an "undefined", hence non-physical, mathematical point of Potential. Pace PU. :nerd:

Property dualism :
It asserts that while mental states are physical in that they are caused by physical states, they are not ontologically reducible to physical states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

Physics + Math = Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Energy is meta-physical Potential :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Information transmission without energy exchange :
We show that it is possible to use a massless field in the vacuum to communicate in such a way that the signal travels arbitrarily slower than the speed of light and such that no energy is transmitted from the sender to the receiver. Instead, the receiver has to supply a signal-dependent amount of work to switch his detector on and off. Because of that, this kind of communication without energy exchange may be called "Quantum Collect Calling".
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3988

In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined . . . . lacking differentiability or analyticity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

*1 Pace is Latin for “in peace,” and in footnotes it means something like “no offense intended” toward a person or source that you are contradicting.

"God" (however you define it) is logically necessary but completely unknown? — SpaceDweller

Yes. Like the Quarks of sub-atomic theory, the First Cause is logically necessary, but known only by rational inference. Some people claim to "know" God directly & personally via meditation or prayer or revelation. But that is a Gnostic form of "knowing" (by faith) instead of the usual knowing by physical experience. Personally, I don't find those alternative methods useful, but if it works for you, who am I to denigrate your subjective knowledge. :cool:

Quarks :
any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.

All is physical. — PoeticUniverse

Physicalism is indeed a fairly common philosophical position among Materialists. But Quantum & Information Theories have undermined the confident assumptions of that outdated Classical worldview. My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter. The "material" element of reality is what we see with our senses, but the "form" is only known via the sixth sense of Reason. Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms). Of course, the quantum foundation of Reality remains under the purview of Physics. But it is so close to nothing that quantum Information theory overlaps with the concerns of Philosophy. Like poets, quantum scientists use concrete metaphors to describe their indescribable abstractions. :nerd:

Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

Quantum Field :
In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientist to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html

Quantum Philosophy :
https://theconversation.com/quantum-philosophy-4-ways-physics-will-challenge-your-reality-150175

In the picture, Socrates is being given hemlock because he spoke too much nonsense about some invisible non physical goings on being so. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death. :cool:

Socrates spent his early years studying astronomy, geometry and other areas of sciences. ... Disappointed Socrates turned his attention to the study of the human character.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+and+socrates

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
___Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

No, my main categories are the human condition, science, and the universe. I don't post the non physical. — PoeticUniverse

Are Love & Hate included in the "human condition"? Can you show me a picture of such "physical" things? Are questions about the "human condition" limited to Quantitative physics & chemistry, or do they include the intangible Qualia that discriminate between "animal condition" or "vegetable condition" and "human condition"? Does your "universe" include "happiness" or "sorrowfulness", or "ugliness", or any of a zillion other mental states? Does your "Science" include Principles that are universals, not particulars? If so, what's physical about a Principle? :wink:

Admittedly, some posters on this forum seem to imagine they are doing physics, when they take a Materialist or Naive Realist philosophical stance. But, that frame-of-Mind itself is still Meta-physical, unless you know of a physical instance of an Attitude. :joke:


-ness. a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state
Note -- are "abstractions" real & physical? Can they be found in Brains and dissected? Or, are they limited to abstract Minds, and analyzed rationally?

Naive Realism :
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

What's going on here, in physical terms? :

Is eternity self-evident? By eternity, I don’t only mean the notion of time collapsing, I also mean infinite phenomena. Infinity and eternity are one in the same. I for some reason find this to be an axiomatic truth which requires no reasoning, logically structured argument, or faith. It is an inherent, self-proving truth. Please tell me your thoughts. — Mp202020

Yes. For brevity, in my writing I sometimes refer to Eternity & Infinity as "Enfernity" : similar to Einstein's "Block-Time" or "Space-Time", but in a holistic sense, timeless & spaceless. Unfortunately, for Materialists & Atheists anything that is not particular is non-sense and counter-intuitive. So, on this forum, we spend a lot of time talking past each other about what's obvious and what's imaginary. Since we humans have no sensory experience of timelessness or spacelessness, or Zero, or Infinity, such abstractions are not intuitive for those who see only with their eyes, and dismiss imaginary concepts as "unreal", hence non-sense. Consequently, they may become offended if you ask them to show you an instance of Zero. :smile:

Enfernity, Enfernal :
A contraction of “Eternity & Infinity” to indicate the irrelevance of those dualistic terms in the holistic state prior to the emergence of space & time from the Big Bang Singularity. Eternity is not a long time, it's the absence of space-time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Block Time :
In Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, time is woven together with the three dimensions of space, forming a bendy, four-dimensional space-time continuum—a “block universe” encompassing the entire past, present, and future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Yes, nonsense, and worse nonsense if they aren't referring to something physical. — PoeticUniverse

True, but trivial. What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?

Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke:

MetaPhysics :
The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

"Metaphysics, it turns out, is the science of essence." [not objects]

Metaphysics : " It is an inquiry to the nature of the Reality as a whole." [not the parts]

"Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality." [not proximate]

As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ρ still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical. — SpinOwOza

Throughout history, and probably pre-history, humans have generally agreed that the notion of a Creator makes sense. What they argued about was specific attributes (human form?) & interests (chosen people) of that axiomatic deity. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of a meaningless godless world become imaginable. Ironically, in that case the rational designing deity is typically replaced with, not Nothing, but irrational random accidents & chaotic cosmic coincidences. Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there. :smile:

The religious thinkers . . . . . but don't question that since they've granted immunity to its prosecution by merely just declaring it to be supernatural and hyperphysical, and, to protect it even more add infinite scope to its Mind — PoeticUniverse

It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? They are literally super-Science in that they go beyond the pragmatic & legal limits of the scientific method. But then, philosophers are not sworn to abide by the laws of Science.

I would think that a practicing programming poet would feel a kinship with those who explore imaginative What-Ifs instead of just prosaic What-Is. Poetry is not subject to empirical testing, only to subjective meaning. Poetry is neither True nor False, but Fictional Facts that resonate with human feelings. My "religion", if you insist on calling it by that name, is to appreciate the poetry of Reality and Ideality. Philosophy is an onerous search for hidden truths, but Poetry reveals the truths that are right in front of us. Poetry doesn't have to prove anything to you ; it makes no claim to objectivity. :cool:


As a moralist, Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood. He is of the view that philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea / truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion.

Despite the clear dangers of poetry, Socrates regrets having to banish the poets. He feels the aesthetic sacrifice acutely, and says that he would be happy to allow them back into the city if anyone could present an argument in their defense.

“That which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.” ― Albert Einstein


What happened before the Big Bang? :
Before the beginning
https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html

"According to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public was: what came before the Big Bang?"

For me, metaphysics is the set of rules. — T Clark

Will you give me some examples of those Metaphysical rules?

I was never really interested in discussing "metaphysics" or metaphysics as such. I want to talk about, and use, Collingwood's metaphysical way of seeing things in my everyday and intellectual life. — T Clark

I was not familiar with Collingwood, so I googled and scanned the Stanford biography. I didn't see anything specifically about a list of rules. And in general, his approach seemed to be more theoretical & academic abstractions than pragmatic & everyday applications. He seems to be mostly concerned with classifications & distinctions. One distinction mentioned in the article was between Realism and Idealism, and it said "Collingwood is often referred to as a British idealist". I didn't see anything that would distinguish his definition of "Metaphysics" from any other philosophical topic. Can you summarize his "metaphysical way of seeing things"? Is it a spiritual worldview? :smile:

The One of Necessity that has to be, per Parmenides, as the simplest base. The least can lead to the great, albeit temporary, as seen in our universe. — PoeticUniverse

Exactly! Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe. :nerd:

Necessary Being :
Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (“Being”),
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Parmenides-Greek-philosopher

The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. That's why I avoid postulating humanoid deities that, even though presumed immortal, are not necessarily eternal. Leaving open the question of turtle-like regression. Instead, my hypothetical "Programmer" is defined as Meta-physical -- hence not locked in the cycle of birth & death -- and as Enfernal (eternal & infinite) -- neither progressive not regressive, merely Potential. You may ask how I know that? I don't. I merely infer the definitive attributes of a Necessary Being. I can't prove empirically that there IS such a Being. But, I can prove Logically, that there must be a Necessary Being. :wink:

For a minute, let’s discuss what I want metaphysics to be, but which it probably isn’t. At least not entirely – I want it to be the set of rules, assumptions we agree on to allow discussion, reason, to proceed, e.g. there is a knowable external, objective reality; truth represents a correspondence between external reality and some representation of it; it’s turtles all the way down; the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Ha! — T Clark

There are few things in life that are exactly what we want them to be. So philosophers, unlike Scientists, tend to adapt the Self to the Situation (Ethics), instead of changing the world to better suit the human body (Physics).

It would be nice if we could all agree on a "set of rules" for discussing metaphysical questions. That would at least put philosophy on a stable foundation, like the "show-me" empiricism of Science. And Francis Bacon probably devised his Method of Inference with that in mind. But, to date, the best we've been able to do is to quantify the uncertainty of our educated guesses. Since practical physical science deals with real things, at least we can add to the statistical certainty of our inferences by repeating experiments, in order to weed-out exceptions to the general rule. But theoretical Metaphysical Science deals with Ideal concepts that merely represent crude approximations of reality (*1 icons).

Unfortunately, Post-Enlightenment Science staked a claim on all empirically verifiable questions (just the facts, no feelings *2), and left-over for Philosophy only the perennial probability questions that have more-or-less-likely answers. Science greedily hoarded all the objective facts under its purview, and let naive philosophers argue endlessly about subjective opinions. Hence, feckless philosophers can only hope to get Closer-To-Truth, by following Aristotle's logical rules for Induction.

However, some Philosophers, Theologians, and a few Scientists don't even agree that there is a "knowable external reality" for our concepts to correspond to. In that case, there's no benefit to logical argument. So only power rules. And Ecclesiastical Courts of Inquisition take the place of experimentation for ruling out error. So the only humane alternative is to have Democratic Courts of Inquiry like The Philosophy Forum, limited only by Logic and respect for civilized discourse.

That said, we are still faced with agreeing on a definition of whatever it is we are disagreeing about. Which is even more difficult, if we can't even agree on what divisive topics fall under the umbrella of Metaphysics. Some dismiss the very idea of non-physics as non-sense, and refuse to even engage in dialog. And others dismiss physics as illusions of greedy minds. So, that's why I went back to Aristotle, to discover what topics he excluded from his book of Physics, and which he included in the second volume "After-Physics". The substance of volume II later became known to Medieval Christians as the "Meta-Physics", and to Enlightenment Scientists as "non-stuff" and "non-sense".

In Volume I, he defined what today we would call the Elements (Matter) and the Principles (Laws) of Physics, illustrated with specific instances. Then, in the Meta-Physics, he turned to the various ideas that humans have postulated, to explain the mysteries of the Real World. Those ideas are not themselves found in Reality, but in human imagination. Hence, we call them "Ideal". And even pragmatic Aristotle adopted Plato's notion of Ideal "Forms" (ideal patterns for real things) in his explanations. And that non-physical concept is also at the core of my own worldview, based on the Reality and Ideality of what we now call "In-form-ation". :nerd:


Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

PS___That definition of the disputatious term implies that Philosophers have no business arguing by the rules of Physics, instead of the applicable rules of Reason.

*1 Do We See Icons or Reality? :
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/12/05/do-we-see-icons-or-reality-a-review-of-donald-hoffmans-the-case-against-reality-brian-martin/

*2 Facts vs Opinions :
In the 1950's TV police drama, Dragnet, dour detective Joe Friday --- whenever a witness began to stray from observations to insert personal impressions --- would shush them with "just the facts ma'am".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(1951_TV_series)

'Nothing' cannot even be meant. — PoeticUniverse

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped it, and the Christian Church used it to fend off heretics. Today it's a timebomb ticking in the heart of astrophysics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082LN7XPV/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

So about 1/27 of the total volume of space in the present universe came to exist. Can space itself expand with a faster than light velocity? Hmm... A length of space larger than the diameter of the present-day observable space came into being during that inflation period. But were things moving FTL? — Verdi

Good question. The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic.

That's why I'm surprised that so many scientists accept such an egregious hypothesis, simply because it seems to replace divine Creation, with a smoke & mirrors Magic Act. I'm neither a Theist nor Atheist, so I'm not desperate enough to accept Scientish Magic in place of Religious Magic. So, my thesis is not based on Faith, but on rational inference --- from what-is to what-might-be. It's just a philosophical thesis, not an emotional religion. :nerd:


Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.

Egregious : extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake;

Zeptosecond - the smallest time unit ever measured
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=smallest+measurable+fraction+of+time

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers. . . . . “nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
___Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=3bb8aefab45e

So, we uncertainly infer by "fact and reason" that 'The Mind' just happens to be sitting around as First, — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?

Multiverse theories, infer that an unknowable eternal universe has always existed, and froths with bubble universes that come & go. A likely story, but based on what "facts & reason"? Even within our knowable universe, scientists have imagined an unreal period of hyper-inflation --- fraction of an instant; near zero to astronomical size --- which fortuitously exceeds the speed limit of our own bubble universe.

The mathematical reasoning for that magical "presto!" appearance of something-from-nothing simply worked backwards from a desired conclusion to a highly improbable and unnatural process. Apparently, materialists faced with an apparent Creation Event, can imagine a variety of alternative explanations, and even make them seem reasonable by plucking numbers out of the air. Anything prior to the Big Bang beginning is uncertain, even when postulated by eminent scientists. :nerd:

Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe . . . .
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/cosmic-inflation/

Presto : 1 : suddenly as if by magic

Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. — PoeticUniverse

I'll ignore the blasphemy. A mind capable of designing an evolutionary process, and then implementing it in malleable physical stuff, could hardly be called imperfect. So, I conclude that the tendency to "fall apart" was intentional. Perfecting is a process, Perfection is an end. So to get from imperfection to perfection requires a period of weeding out the unfit. A sculptor begins with a blank block of marble, and carves away everything that is not a "perfect" imitation of the model in his mind. :grin:

“When carving stone, the sculptor removes everything that is not the statue."
___Judith Hanson Lasater

So, how did 'The Mind' and its information, out of thin air, such as it is, not the best, get programmed? Or do we just have to explain an event such as our universe, but not anything much wider in scope — PoeticUniverse

That's easy. Our space-time world is limited by program parameters, but the Programmer (Enformer) of the world exists outside the space-time program. Is that so hard to imagine? A computer programmer is not "in" the computer, hence not bound by its rules. Instead, the computer is created to serve the purposes of the Programmer. The realm outside the confines of the computer is "much wider in scope" than anything within the low-resolution program.

If our world is a space-time bubble, whatever is outside the membrane is Not Space Time, hence could be eternal. Even the imaginary Multiverse is assumed to have always existed. So who programmed the Multiverse, with Natural Laws & Energy & Matter? If you like, you can imagine the Programmer of our world as an ever-growing tower-of-turtles, but only an Eternal Programmer can end the inconclusive ellipsis of open-ended existence. . . . . . . . . . .

When philosophers and scientists begin to develop an explanatory theory for a mystery, they usually begin with an Axiom : an unproven assumption. G*D, Logos, First Cause, Prime Mover is the all-encompassing axiom upon which my thesis is founded. That simple assumption is postulated as a beginning point for further argumentation. The rest of the argument is in the Enformationism website, and the BothAnd Blog. Any questions? :joke:


Axiom : An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

Pragmatic Idealism :
the kind of Pragmatic Idealism I'm envisioning does not replace scientific Realism --- and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters --- because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief. Only the unreal (ideal) Deity is, by necessity, taken for granted as an axiom.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

You can break the laws of nature? Really? Where? How? Let me see! — Artemis

Drivers on speed-limited highways "break" the law by exceeding the posted limit. Nature has imposed certain limits on its creatures (Natural Laws), but arrogant humans have gone beyond those limitations. In that sense, they "break" the law. For example, where terrestrial animals are bound to the ground by their "nature", humans have learned to fly with artificial wings, and even to "slip the surly bonds of earth" to fly into uninhabitable space. That's un-natural, and un-lawful. Do you "see" what I'm saying? :joke:

even if you're right... being the most powerful natural beings doesn't make us and our culture unnatural. — Artemis

Perhaps not. But it does make our way of life Artificial. :cool:

Artificial synonym : unnatural
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/artificial

It fails. Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. — PoeticUniverse

My worldview acknowledges the imperfections of our beloved world, and offers a rationale for a less-than-ideal creation of a World Creator : it ain't perfect until it's over. Nothing that changes will ever be perfect (whole, complete), until it ceases to change. Perfection has no room for evolution. So, our role is merely to evolve, until we can't go no mo'.

Only ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) or Full-Circle are complete and perfect. Since we are somewhere in the middle of those extremes, we can only assume that the world is still evolving from Alpha toward Omega. Hence, imperfect creatures cannot expect a perfect creation. However, it's good-enough for my moderate needs and expectations. So, I'm content (dare I say "happy"?) with Aristotelian Moderation in all things. That's a philosophical/Stoic attitude toward a less than perfect world. Are you a frustrated perfectionist? :cool:

PS___are you disappointed in your imperfect world?

How to beat Perfectionism :
Perfectionism rarely begets perfection—only disappointment.
The Stoics understood how pointless—and dangerous to our mental health and progress in life—those thoughts were.
https://dailystoic.com/perfectionism/