Not really sure what this is trying to convey. Thefe are several coherent realist perspectives on QM which don't invoke any form of collapse, such as Bohmian, Many Worlds, Stochastic mechanics and possibly others — Apustimelogist

I'm sure that is aware of those other scientific "perspectives"*1 --- or interpretations --- which postulate something like a parallel reality that is "not directly observable" : hence not empirical. But among Philosophers, the Copenhagen version*2 may be the most popular*3 --- if that matters to anyone. It may lack philosophical rigor, and due to inherent Uncertainty, a single coherent explanation, but it is a fertile field for philosophical exploration.

For hypothetical scientific purposes, one or more of those alternative perspectives may better suit a materialist frame of mind*3. But, on a philosophical forum, and for philosophical purposes (introspecting the human mind), some form of Idealism, with a 2500 year history, may be more appropriate. BTW, even Bohm's*4 "realistic perspective" is typically labeled as a form of Idealism. :smile:



*1. Realist perspectives on quantum mechanics generally assert that quantum phenomena reflect an underlying reality, even if that reality is not directly observable or fully understood. This contrasts with interpretations that view quantum mechanics as purely a tool for prediction or a description of our knowledge rather than a reflection of objective reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=realist+perspectives+on+quantum+mechanics

*2. The Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted as a foundational framework for understanding quantum mechanics, though it's not universally embraced. It's often the first interpretation presented in textbooks and forms the basis for much of the standard quantum mechanics curriculum. However, it's not without its critics, and alternative interpretations like the Many-Worlds interpretation or pilot-wave theories exist and have their proponents.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+is+accepted

*3. Physicists still divided about quantum world, 100 years on :
More than a third -- 36 percent -- of the respondents favoured the mostly widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation.
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/physicists-still-divided-about-quantum-world-100-years-on/article_af1d9414-7a94-5378-88fa-1c0f40dacdad.html

*4. David Bohm's philosophical perspective, often termed "Bohmian idealism," posits a unified, interconnected reality where consciousness and the physical world are not separate but rather different expressions of a deeper, underlying order.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bohm+idealism

In this view, to know something is not simply to construct a mental representation of it, but to participate in its form — to take into oneself, immaterially, the essence of what the thing is. — Wayfarer

Aristotle postulated a primitive definition of Energy (energeia) as the actualization of Potential. And modern physics has equated causal energy with knowledge (meaningful Information)*1*2. For which I coined the term EnFormAction : the power to transform. Until now, I hadn't thought of that transformation from potential to actual as participation*3 in the Platonic form of an object : the importation of some property/qualia into oneself.

Example : A photon --- atom of energy --- somehow picks up information about an apple as it reflects off the surface. When that photon is absorbed by a receptor in the retina, the colorless energy is converted into electrical signals that the brain can interpret (meaning) as redness. So you could say that the brain/mind*4 has been informed of a quality of appleness. The image in the brain or meaning in mind is not a chunk of apple matter, but a "bit" of appleness : the essence of a round red fruit out there in the real world.

If Aristotle was correct, a free photon (kinetic energy) is not yet a carrier, but a Potential for conveying Energy/Information from one place to another. . . . from matter to mind. Hence, our sponge-like minds are continually soaking-up essences from the material world : participating in its existence.??? :nerd:


*1. Information is Energy :
This book defines a dynamic concept of information that results in a conservation of information principle. . . . . conservation of energy . . .
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*2. Information as a basic property of the universe :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

*3. Participation : "participation" means the act or state of sharing, partaking, or receiving a part of something.
The "part" in question is what philosophers call Essence, or Qualia.

*4. Brain/Mind is a system ; brain is structure ; mind is function

One clear example of possible panpsychism is 'sick building syndrome', in which it as if the energy fields seem disturbed. Here, it would suggest that matter has some inherent consciousness. . . . I am asking about illusory appearance as a basis of belief and it is a little different from. the idea of delusion, which is a falsehood. — Jack Cummins

Panpsychism is a currently popular philosophical worldview, even among scientists. So, the notion that mental phenomena are inherent in the natural world has some validity. But to imagine that a brick & mortar building can feel sick is pretty far-out.

Therefore, to explain "sick building syndrome" with mental energy fields seems to be an anthro-morphic analogy with a "sick human" whose problem is mental instead of physical. Years ago, when Investigators couldn't find a physical cause, they sometimes concluded that the "syndrome" was hysterical or viral memes in people, instead of fumes or germs*1 in buildings. Eventually, fungal mold became a common culprit because it was often hidden behind sheetrock walls where rain or plumbing leaks kept things damp. Consequently, insurance companies began to pay-out millions of dollars for mold remediation. I suppose you could imagine that's like a doctor treating a sick patient.

Perhaps, those predisposed to spiritual themes could easily imagine that an inanimate material object could be possessed by an energy/mind field. For some, such mysteries evolved into conspiracy theories, involving invisible agents. But pragmatic & skeptical investigators*2 are likely to view such mysteries more as a problem with human minds than with spirit-possessed buildings. Ironically, even practical scientists are mystified by brainless slime molds that can navigate mazes, as-if they possessed rational minds*3. Ooooh, spooky! :naughty:


*1. 6 Things That Cause Sick Building Syndrome
Mold is the leading cause of Sick Building Syndrome and can have dire effects on your health. In fact, in about 80% of sick building syndrome cases, mold infestations (black mold and other types) are the main cause of illness.
https://rtkenvironmental.com/health/sick-building-syndrome/

*2. SKEPTIC Magazine :
In the absence of toxins or pathogens, investigators look to behavior patterns for clues.
https://www.skeptic.com/article/mystery-illness-strikes-boston-choir-but-was-it-all-in-their-heads/

*3. How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence
Single-celled amoebae can remember, make decisions and anticipate change, urging scientists to rethink intelligent behavior.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/

Published by Essentia Foundation, which is Kastrup's publishing house. I like Glattfelder but my interests are a little more prosaic, he's a bit too far out when he gets into shamanism and psychedelics. — Wayfarer

Me too! But, his encyclopedic knowledge of "footnotes to Plato" seems to be second only to your own. So, I'm learning a lot about both objective and subjective aspects of the physical & meta-physical world. From his review of shamanism & psychedelic drugs, I learn more about human creativity, as evidenced in our ingrained love for fictional storytelling.

Because of my rational-religion background though, I'm cautious about anything that smells like Mysticism & Spiritualism. That's why I spell the common term for a transcendent deity : G*D. For my BothAnd philosophy, it combines the philosophical concepts of Brahman (infinite & impersonal) and Atman (local & personal). What Glattfelder calls the Sapient Cosmos is to me more like Lao Tse's Tao. The First Cause of our universe necessarily had the Potential for Sentience & Sapience, but I would reserve the term "sapient" for someone we could communicate with, mind to mind. :smile:

PS___ Besides, he describes a primary role for Information --- my own personal pet --- in his philosophy of a material world full of immaterial ideas.

Abstract: Berkeley’s idealism should be reinterpreted not as an outmoded metaphysical theory, but as a philosophically astute protest against the “great abstraction” initiated by the scientific revolution — a defense of the primacy of experience and the indispensability of the observer, in a historical moment when knowledge was being severed from consciousness in favor of a disembodied ‘view from nowhere’. — Wayfarer

Berkeley's Idealism may still be a relevant metaphysical theory, but the general physical understanding has evolved beyond primitive Materialism since the 17th century. For example, I'm currently reading a science/philosophy book by James Glattfelder --- physicist, financial quant, and complexity theorist --- The Sapient Cosmos. A key conclusion is that the physical universe is guided by a Teleological Purpose, somewhat more cryptic than the Genesis gene-centric command : "be fruitful and multiply . . . . fill the Earth and subdue it".

He includes a chapter entitled, A New Perspective, which reviews "The Demise of Physicalism" and "the Rise of Idealism". The chapter discusses Information-Theoretic Theories of Everything (e.g. Tononi's IIT), the Analytical Idealism of Kastrup, and several other unorthodox worldviews that place cosmic Mind over Mundane Matter. But his preferred MoMM philosophy seems to be Syncretic Idealism*1, which incorporates a variety of interpretations of the role of Mind, Consciousness, and Information in the post-quantum world*2.

I am leaning in a similar direction, but I'm not sure I can agree with some of the theorists' surreal interpretations of a Sapient Cosmos. Are you familiar with these cutting-edge updates of Berkeley's model of a Mind Created World? Do you think the Cosmos is currently Conscious, or is it evolving toward Collective Sentience, or was the First Cause of the evolutionary program Sentient in some sense? :smile:


*1. Syncretic idealism is a philosophical proposition that combines aspects of various forms of idealism with elements from other philosophical systems and insights from physics, particularly information theory. It aims to create a unified worldview by integrating concepts previously considered in isolation, offering a new understanding of reality, information, consciousness, and meaning. Essentially, it's a way of synthesizing different philosophical ideas to create a more comprehensive and coherent picture of existence. . . . .

Syncretic idealism often incorporates concepts like:
# Ontology: The study of being and existence, with syncretic idealism proposing a multi-tiered ontology that bridges the gap between abstract potentiality and concrete actuality.
# Information Theory: Drawing from physics, it emphasizes the role of information in shaping reality and the universe's structure.
# Consciousness: A central element, with syncretic idealism exploring the emergence of consciousness and its role in a sentient cosmos.
# Teleology: The idea of a guiding force or purpose in the universe, with syncretic idealism suggesting a "will to complexity" that drives the evolution of the cosmos
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=syncretic+idealism


*2. The aim of the chapter is to gently introduce the reader to all the concepts heavily condensed into the following information-rich sentence: Syncretic idealism presents a multi-tiered ontology, describing the transition from abstract quantum potentiality to the manifestation of complex actuality, outlining the assembly of physicality from the ontological fields of information fueling the computational engine at the core of reality, unveiling a teleological ordering force — a will to complexity — sculpting manifestations of increasing complexity resulting in sapience and disclosing the final emergence of dissociated centers of consciousness, yielding a sentient cosmos.
https://medium.com/@jnode/the-sapient-cosmos-in-a-nutshell-02c3479cca4b

For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

FWIW : Ervin Laszlo was a child prodigy in classical music, who eventually became a non-academic philosopher of science, with a focus on Consciousness. He is now described as a Systems Theorist and Integral Theorist. Obviously, an autodidact genius, and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Since his "new paradigm" & Integral Systems worldview seems to be similar in some ways to your own Logic of Existence, maybe he, or someone in his orbit, would be capable of discovering a Fatal Error, if any, in your theory. Unfortunately, I am not in his orbit, or in his intellectual class. :cool:


Ervin Laszlo identifies a convergence of crises, including environmental degradation, social instability, and economic challenges, as major world problems. He argues these issues stem from a fragmented, ego-driven worldview and call for a shift towards a holistic, interconnected perspective. Laszlo emphasizes the need for a collective awakening and a move towards unity and compassion to navigate these turbulent times
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ervin+laszlo+world+problems

Ervin Laszlo --- Home Page
"We have reached a historic turning point - a "point of bifurcation" - at which we must find new ways to upshift our individual and collective consciousness to ensure the desired resolution of these crises."
https://ervinlaszlobooks.com/

I would go further and say that natural selection is itself a teleological explanation. It is a teleological explanation that covers all species instead of just one (i.e. it is a generic final cause). — Leontiskos

That's an interesting observation, since deniers of end-driven processes feel confident that Darwin's randomized mechanical procedure*1 obviates the need for First & Final causes. Just as Quantum processes are statistically randomized, biological mutations seem haphazard, going nowhere.

As you noted though, Natural Selection (choice, election, preference) gives direction to what is otherwise an erratic path of cause & effect. So, the question arises : whence the criteria for fitness that determine the survival of an organism? If you trace evolution back to its origin in the Big Bang, the Primary Measure of fitness seems to be inherent in the laws of thermodynamics : Energy ~= Life : Entropy ~= Death. And some thinkers have extended the coasting mechanical chain to its fated eventual End in "heat death".

Yet, they fail to explain how a small blue planet, on the cusp of an ordinary spiral galaxy has somehow evaded the Second Law Sword, and produced Living & Thinking lumps of animated matter. How to account for that side-track from a one-way trip to Frozen Hell? :wink:


*1. The relationship between Darwin's theory of evolution and teleology is complex and debated. While Darwin's theory is often seen as replacing teleology (the idea of goal-directedness in nature) with a mechanistic explanation of natural selection, some scholars argue that he actually re-invented or adapted teleological thinking. . . . .
While using teleological language, Darwin's theory does not imply a pre-determined direction for evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=darwin+teleology
Note --- Teleology is based on the inference from emergent examples of orderly & organized anti-entropic features, such as Life & Mind that should not be possible if chaotic Entropy ruled the world. The observed direction of Time' Arrow seems to be pointed toward increasing structural order & functional complexity, such as the human brain.

Here is a glimpse - recognising that this post could be construed as "self promotion" that might lead to me being banned from this forum: — Pieter R van Wyk

I think "self-promotion" on the forum is a problem only if you make money from clicks or book sales. I frequently provide links to my own website. But there is no pay-wall, so the information is free . . . . and worth every penny. :joke:

Geodesic of Knowledge where any point on this geodesic is some assumed truth and the lines are inferences to deduced truths. This geodesic is unnavigable — Pieter R van Wyk

I know what a "geodesic" is in non-Euclidean geometry. But I have no idea how or why it would apply to universal human problems. So, right off-the-bat, your Problem Statement is over my head, and above my pay grade . . . . hence "un-navigable. :wink:

Zeroth Argument of Understanding — Pieter R van Wyk

This "beyond first principles" concept is not in my amateur philosopher vocabulary. It seems to open the door to "to radical innovation and a deeper, more expansive understanding of reality". But not for my little untrained pea brain. Perhaps there is a website for Mathematical or Meta-mathematical Philosophy, where someone could communicate on your level. :nerd:

Here I argue that the Geodesic of Understanding and Knowledge, I proposed in my first chapter – my problem statement, is in fact a viable alternative to 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour. It does not provide answers to all problems but it does provide a fundamental structure for a better understanding of life, the Universe and anything. — Pieter R van Wyk

That is indeed a bold statement. But I am not qualified to accept or deny it. I have my own notion of a "fundamental structure" --- Holism --- that points toward an answer to Douglas Adam's query about : "Life, the Universe, and Everything". But I don't think the final answer is "42". Good luck with your attempt to root-out any possible "Fatal Flaw" in your non-philosophical reasoning. :smile:


PS___ In your OP, you quoted Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow : "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
So, it seems that you are trying to communicate with philosophical zombies. :joke:

I have stated, categorically, in my opening statement, that I am not au fait with the 'ism' and 'ology' languages - however, I am pretty convinced that no study of "metaphysical philosophy of materialism" would explain to me why the world is as it is; why we still have poverty and hunger, revolution and war. — Pieter R van Wyk

I'm still playing along with your cryptic statement of "The Problem", hoping to get a glimpse of
The Solution without having to buy the book. But all I get is a statement of the obvious : that after 2600 years, linguistic Philosophy has not solved the problem of physical & social friction (discord, strife, conflict, discontent, dissention, antagonism). As far as I can see : nor have spiritualistic Religion and empirical Science brought an end to "poverty and hunger, revolution and war). All of those disciplines have attempted to explain "why the world is as it is" to no avail. And, so far, after 2.5 millennia of -isms, -ologies, & messiahs, Salvation remains firmly lodged in the prospective future.

Like you, the Buddha made no attempt to philosophize about the sad state of the world, and offered no magical rectification. He simply accepted the imperfect planet Earth as it is, and concluded that the world's problem is not your personal problem, but each person's emotional reaction to imperfection creates internal problems. So, his Stoic solution was not to change the world, but to change your mind. Of course, ignoring the general Problem will not make it go away, hence "we will still have poverty & hunger, revolution & war".

If the Buddha's fatalism is not to your liking, other more sanguine thinkers have posited aggressive positive action to deal with The Problem. For example, Transhumanists depend on science & technology to fix what's wrong with the hand we've been dealt. Extropy*1 is essentially an optimistic reliance on Science, instead of God, to solve the world's perplexing predicament*2 . But I have concluded that the world may have a built-in long-term solution to the thermodynamic & socio-dynamic problem of Entropy & dissipation & devolution. I coined the term "Enformy"*3 to suggest that Nature is not passively going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket. And without human husbandry, things could get worse. What's your verbal or actionable resolution to The Problem? :joke:


*1. Extropy, in the context of transhumanism and futurism, is a concept that represents the potential for positive change, growth, and the enhancement of life. It's often viewed as the opposite of entropy, emphasizing increasing order, complexity, and intelligence. Extropy is a guiding principle for those seeking to optimize human existence and societal structures through technology and innovation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=extropy

*2. The Human Dilemma :
Entropy, Extropy or Enformy?
In his recent book, Heavens on Earth, Michael Shermer said, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the First Law of Life, which is to get your life in order". For that purpose, he proposed the philosophy of Extropianism, which is a key concept from the ideology of Transhumanism. In a Skeptic Magazine article, Shermer offered the technological optimism of Extropy as an alternative to Jordan Peterson's more tragic heroic stance in 12 Rules For Life, An Antidote to Chaos. The human dilemma ackowledged by both authors is the same : if humanity were to passively acquiesce to Fate, the world would soon revert to a state of nature, "red in tooth and claw". Some people think that would be preferable to the mess that human intervention has gotten us into. But when God created his earthly Paradise, he made a man from clay "and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." [Gen. 2:9,10,15] That's because the pastoral environment that humans find pleasant tends to revert to tangled jungle or thorny wilderness in the absence of human husbandry.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page16.html

*3. Enformy, was defined as the organizing principle of the universe. Now I wish to build on that foundation to construct a philosophical, scientific, and religious paradigm suitable for our current level of understanding. But first I have coined another new label to distinguish this fledgling worldview from other old and new conceptions of physical and metaphysical reality. Enformity is a salient quality of our universe which has been overlooked by materialistic science, and taken for granted by spiritualistic theologies.
https://www.enformity.enformationism.info/page2%20welcome.html

↪Gnomon
just wanted to add a connection that could be found between information and and Dissipation-driven Adaptive Organization (DDAO) physical law. — Danileo

Yes. Living organisms exist in a state that is far from the equilibrium of Entropy, and successfully dissipate Energy, as they use it to generate their own Body, Life & Mind. Ironically, that un-numbered "physical law" is contrary to the the presumably universal Second Law of Thermodynamics. So some explanation for the "spontaneous" local violations of the dissipative law should be forthcoming from Science or Philosophy.

That anti-entropy process was labeled by Schrodinger as "negative entropy" (negentropy) in his essay What Is Life? In my own information-centric thesis of Enformationism, I call it "Enformy"*2. My amateur explanation of how Life & Mind emerged from a generally dissipative system assumes that : A> Information is fundamental, while Consciousness is emergent ; and B> Information (EnFormAction) is essentially Energy*3 (power to transform) ; and C> the anti-entropic Causal force (Enformy) weaves Actual Reality, including Matter & Mind, from a pre-Bang Pool of Potential.

Of course, that POP is a philosophical inference, not an empirical observation. But, if you accept the conjecture, then the OP could be reworded to say that "The precursor of Consciousness is fundamental". :smile:


*1. Dissipation-driven adaptive organization,as theorized by Jeremy England, proposes that systems, including living organisms, can spontaneously self-organize into more complex structures to efficiently absorb and dissipate energy from their environment. This process, driven by thermodynamic principles, suggests that the emergence of life and its complex structures can be understood as a consequence of systems optimizing their ability to dissipate heat.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+and+Dissipation-driven+Adaptive+Organization

*2. 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 ]
#. 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).
#. 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.
#. Destructive "Entropy" and Constructive "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. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. The concept of "information is energy" suggests that information, like energy, is a fundamental aspect of reality with the capacity to cause change. While not universally accepted as a strict equivalence, several viewpoints highlight the close relationship between information and energy. Information can be seen as a form of energy, or at least closely intertwined with it, as it requires energy to be stored, transmitted, and processed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy

With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P
"The English School of Information Theory emerged in the mid-20th century as a counterpoint to Claude Shannon’s mathematically driven theory of communication. Rather than focusing on signal transmission, this school emphasized the semantic, epistemic, and physical dimensions of information — especially how it relates to scientific measurement and observer knowledge. — Ulthien

Although Information Theory is an essential component of my Enformationism*1 thesis, I am not very familiar with the "English School". However, my thesis does not view Consciousness as fundamental. Instead, Awareness, and specifically self-awareness, seems to be an emergent property of material evolution. So, what is fundamental to physical reality is Causal Energy, which can transform into Matter. Moreover, cutting-edge science, has recently equated causal Energy with semantic Information*2. So, I have concluded that EnFormAction*3 (energy + form + action) is the causal power-to-transform. that is fundamental to our evolving material & mental world. Does, any of that make sense to you? :smile:


*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. The statement "energy is information" highlights a deep connection between these two fundamental concepts. While not a strict equivalence, it suggests that information, in its broadest sense, can be understood as a form of energy, and that energy plays a crucial role in the existence and manipulation of information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's Will) of the axiomatic First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to transform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

PS___ For more info on Enformationism, see my reply to Danileo below.

And, NO, my understanding is NOT based on any philosophy. It is based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things, the things that consist of mass OR energy. You can either agree with this logical assumption OR not. — Pieter R van Wyk

How are the "conditions" of your assumption different from the metaphysical philosophy of Materialism*1? As a pragmatic position, I do assume that physical objects exist in my environment. But I didn't arrive at that conclusion by logical reasoning. It's just the cultural default assumption for making your way in the world. From my reading of physics though, I also understand that the material substance of those objects is essentially a "frozen" or stabilized form of dynamic Energy. So, it seems that causal Energy is more fundamental*2 than malleable Matter. That's a concept, not a direct observation.

Be that as it may, the existence of Matter & Energy is not in question. But the "core argument" of your Logic of Existence remains to be derived from the bare fact of a material world. You seem to be denying the ability of philosophical concepts to produce useful answers to Ontological questions : " It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches" If the essence of Existence cannot be encapsulated in concepts or words, what is the alternative : direct unmediated Experience via meditation or drug trips*3?

Anyway, I suppose your "conditional assumption" is what logicians call an Axiom, and is accepted as self-evidently true, without relying on empirical evidence. But obviously, your "understanding" goes beyond the bare existence of a material world. So, what does it say about the Ideal world of concepts? Does it deny the validity of Idealistic philosophy? Or does it explain how a material world could evolve creatures who engage with the physical world by means of metaphysical ideas & concepts, as mediators of ultimate ding an sich (noumenal) Reality? :smile:



*1. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism in metaphysics, according to which matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

*2. In modern physics, the concept of energy is often considered more fundamental than matter. While matter and energy are interconnected and can be converted into each other (as described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc²), energy is seen as the underlying principle that gives rise to all physical phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+more+fundamental+than+matter

*3. According to James Glattfelder in The Sapient Cosmos : "the psychedelic experience conveys 'unitary' knowledge". He's referring to direct access to a parallel reality, from which the conventional world of our physical senses emerges." Since I have no psychedelic experience, I cannot concur with that assertion.

Put simply: Teleological explanation requires a fixed end or final cause. But in a probabilistic system, the future is open at every step. To say that events are happening as a means to reaching some future state C, is nonsensical considering state C isn't even guaranteed. — tom111

I think you have identified an important distinction between a scientific (mechanistic) and a philosophical (probabilistic) worldview. Classical physics was based on mathematical logic, in which an effect necessarily follows a cause. But Quantum physics revealed a statistical logic, in which there is an element of uncertainty between Cause & Effect. As you implied, a Teleologically-evolving system must have a pre-defined goal. But a Teleonomically-progressing*1 world can explore many options as it proceeds, not to a fixed end, but toward an optimized solution to a general problem, or question.

For example : self-adjusting Evolutionary Programming*2, using digital computers, can emulate analog evolution and even quantum computing, by utilizing the near-infinite options of random code variations to add flexibility to the rigid mechanical operations of older two-value (1 or 0) information processing. Ironically, Darwin's evolution assumed god-like pre-selection of criteria for success. For instance, sheep would be bred for maximum wool production : an empirically measurable goal. But Natural Selection may be more open-ended ; as illustrated by Evolutionary Programming : "EP algorithms can adjust their own parameters (like mutation rates) during the search process". The code itself is modified by the transformative procedure.

I don't know if your OP was intended to apply to the initiation and evolution of our physical universe. But my own worldview interprets the Big Bang as a creation event. In which case, the question arises : who or what caused the Bang? And to what end? The Genesis myth may have made sense 3000 years ago. But a modern explanation for Being (Ontology) and Purpose (Telos) would have to take 21st century science into account. Hence, the new definition of natural evolution would be Probabilistic instead of Deterministic. :nerd:

*1. Teleonomy :
# Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
# Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat),"Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

*2. Evolutionary programming (EP) is a computational method that mimics biological evolution to solve optimization and search problems. It's a type of evolutionary algorithm (EA) that uses mutation as the primary operator to evolve a population of potential solutions. Unlike genetic algorithms, EP traditionally emphasizes mutation over crossover.
1. Initialization:
A population of solutions is randomly generated or initialized with some prior knowledge.
2. Evaluation:
The fitness of each individual is assessed based on the problem's objective function.
3. Variation (Mutation):
New solutions are created by applying mutation to the existing individuals. In some cases, a small amount of crossover (combination of solutions) might be included.
4. Selection:
Individuals are selected based on their fitness, with better solutions more likely to survive and reproduce.
5. Repeat:
Steps 2-4 are repeated for a set number of generations or until a satisfactory solution is found.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evolutionary+programming

Surely, artificial intelligence mimics reasoning — but does it actually reason? For that matter, what does it mean to reason? Is reason something that can be described in terms of algorithms, inputs and outputs? Or is there something deeper at its core? — Wayfarer

Charchidi touches on that "deeper" question. He notes, "although some scholars argue that language is not necessary for thought, and is best conceived as a tool for communication". For example, animals communicate their feelings via grunts & body language, their vocabulary is very limited. But human "reasoning" goes beyond crude feelings into differences and complex interrelationships between this & that. How do you understand human thought : Is it analogous to computer language, processing 1s & 0s, or more like amorphous analog Smells?

One feature of human Reasoning is the ability to trace the chain of causes back to its origin or originator, either a mechanical cause or a creative agent. This is a necessary talent for social creatures. Reasoning is logic-based ; which is relationship-based ; and which, in a social context, is meaning-based. But algorithms are rule-based, not meaning-based. However, as computer algorithms get more complex and sophisticated, they may become better able to simulate human reasoning (like a higher resolution image). Yet, without a human body for internal reference, the simulation may be lacking substance. A metal frame robot may come closer to emulating humanity, but it's the frailties of flesh that human social groups have in common. :smile:

In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream." — Pieter R van Wyk

Are you blaming Analytical*1 Philosophy for all the problems of the world? If so, do you think Holistic/Systems philosophy will cure all the ills of incompletely-evolved human culture? That's a pretty big "if".

Karl Marx's sociological theory placed most of the blame for poverty, hunger, & war on the unbalanced economic System of Capitalism that ruled the world for at least 2600 years. That out-of-whack system placed almost all of the labor on the lower classes (98%), but allocated most of the rewards of labor to the upper classes (2%). His simple solution to the world's inequities was to allow Capitalism to eventually collapse due to its internal contradictions. Ironically, those inspired by his theory were not patient enough to wait for social evolution to do the job, and turned to violence & vengeance to do the job. So, can we now look back on Communism as a failed Grand Scheme, or perhaps a "pipe dream"?

Marx wrote that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." His philosophy has changed the world positively in some ways : allowing liberal Labor Parties of the masses to compete on a slightly more level playing field with Conservative elites. But currently, a conservative backlash is set on erasing most of those gains in social equity.

With that historical record of "changing the world" via Philosophy, how do you envision your Systems Philosophy solving the 2600 year old Problem of "strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war" and also " to have peace, and to eradicate poverty and hunger." How will you convince the masses and the elites of the Logic of Existence? How can a theoretical philosophical revolution/transformation restore the balance of Justice & environmental Harmony? Can we fast-forward humanity to a Utopian stage of evolution? :cool:

PS___ Are these practical questions answered in detail in the book? If so, it might be worth the price of admission.

*1. I used "analytical" as a contrast to "holistic", not in the modern sense.


SEE-SAW OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, & ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE

I'm very suspicious of the idea that we, or the universe, are progressing anywhere - though I know full well that things are always in the process of change. Everything changes, except change itself. — Ludwig V

Some secular scientists describe the universe as simply wandering, with no apparent direction or goal. Yet, Theologians tend to take for granted that the world has a goal : A> to produce worshipers that will stroke the imperial ego of the supreme Lord on his heavenly throne ; and/or B> to save those faithful servants from the wrathful destruction of his own imperial Garden of Eden (obviously, Noah's Flood didn't finish the job). Although I was indoctrinated, as a child, with various versions of those options, as an adult, those self-defeating plans don't make any sense to me . . . . except as a capitulation to the win-lose Game of Thrones against a demonic anti-god, with humans as expendable pawns.

However, my own 21st century worldview, acknowledges the Progress that has been made in space-time since the Big Bang : from a dot-like Singularity --- doorway to infinity? --- beginning with nothing-but World-creating Energy & Natural Cosmic Laws to a near-infinite-yet-still-expanding universe full of countless blazing stars, and at least one blue planet of thinking & feeling & philosophizing meat entities. I had come to that conclusion long before I discovered that a 20th century genius had beaten me to it : A.N. Whitehead's Process and Reality*1. :smile:

*1. Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality :
Process Metaphysics vs Substance Physics
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

I can't think of a Cosmic Mind except as a huge version of the collective mind that seems to emerge in crowds. — Ludwig V

My own notion of G*D*2 in a participatory universe is similar to the concept of Group Mind, except that it must also account for a First Cause of some kind to program the Singularity with enough Energy & guiding Laws to produce an evolving sphere of Actualizing Potential. That's where the Mind & Matter potential of Information Theory comes in. :nerd:

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
# I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

"System := Components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose." p27, p135 — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. That's one way to describe the notion of Holism. Systems Theory was developed --- by Bertallanffy, et al --- primarily for pragmatic scientific or engineering purposes. But Holism was intended by Jan Smuts mostly for philosophical applications, such as understanding the Hows & Whys of natural Evolution. Here's my own definition of Holism :

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

"The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exist no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature" p69 Solving the demarcation problem. — Pieter R van Wyk

I assume that instead of "collection" you meant "connection". Physically, a "demarcation meridian" is simply a point of reference for defining boundaries. But I suppose your DM is a philosophical assertion that Natural & Cultural laws are categorically distinct, with no overlap, no connection. But how does that "solve" the problem of distinguishing between Science and Pseudoscience? Are you saying that Science is natural (hence factual) and Pseudoscience is cultural (hence imaginary or counterfactual)? That seems to be merely a restatement of the problem, not a solution. :wink:

I can even tell you that holism and reductionism is simply two sides of the same coin. "It (my systems theory) describes a logic of understanding any part of a whole and any whole as a part." — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. Reductionism is basically the Scientific Method devised in the 17th century. That's a practical way for humans to break Nature down into analytically understandable puzzle pieces. But 20th century Holism is a Philosophical method --- "a logic of understanding" --- for viewing a collection of entangled holons as integral & functional parts of an interacting System, with novel functions of its own. :nerd:

The New Physics :
“The advent of holism in the 20th century coincided with the gradual development of quantum mechanics. Holism in physics is the nonseparability of physical systems from their parts, especially quantum phenomena. Classical physics cannot be regarded as holistic, as the behavior of individual parts represents the whole.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html


PS___ I included the Academia link in my last post because C. van Wyck is a scholar of Holistic Science, and he may be related to you :
Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/

And Kant concluded that Ultimate Reality (noumenon) is fundamentally unknowable to humans. He seems to be implying that philosophers are just ordinary humans, who have made it their business to guess (speculate) about non-phenomenal noumena. — Gnomon
It’s more a question of intellectual humility - no matter how much we know there’s still a sense in which we lack insight into how things really are. Human knowledge is necessarily incomplete, in that sense. — Wayfarer

I just came across a quote in the book I'm currently reading, after the author discussed Aldous Huxley's notion : "that our entire perception of reality is a hallucination". That's a strange way to think about the "reality" philosophers have striven to understand rationally for 3000 years. He then quotes neuroscientist David Eagleman :
". . . . what we call normal perception does not really differ from hallucinations, except that the latter are not anchored by external input. . . . . . Instead of reality being passively recorded by the brain, it is actively constructed by it."

That's a big exception for rational thinkers. But does the notion that humans "actively construct" their worldview resonate at all with your concept of a Mind-Created World? :smile:

Your *1 Thank you for putting this on this forum. The one issue I have is that the responses you quote (Core argument, Beyond conceptualisation, ...) is generated by artificial intelligence, which is (currently still) incapable of abstract thought. I will address your notes: — Pieter R van Wyk

Hopefully, semi-sentient but heartless AI will be able to scan your words, and summarize them, without a personal agenda, to warp your intended meaning. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for my own understanding of "the problem" with analytical philosophy. I may have opinions of my own.

I can understand your reticence to reveal bits & pieces of your thesis on the "TPF inquisition" forum, which may evoke unsympathetic & prejudiced responses, by those who enjoy pointing-out Flaws more than noticing Virtues. Any “flaw” in your reasoning would most likely be found in the intuitive or inferential leap from parts to whole. But analytical minds may more easily see the flaws in isolated parts than the synthesized system. :smile:

I propose an understanding that is NOT based on 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour BUT on a fundamental, deduced from 'first principles', definition of a system - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning. — Pieter R van Wyk

For those of us on the outside, can you summarize your “System”, and its Principles, in a single paragraph? If so, I may be able to determine if it is A> of interest to me, and B> within my range to understand. However, due to my own limitations & flaws, I may or may not be able to discern the "fatal flaw" in your reasoning. I'm currently reading a large book on a similar controversial topic : "to expose the fallacies of some of our culture's deepest metaphysical convictions". So I may not be able to get into your book for a while. :meh:
Note --- According to the Wiki quote below, the philosophical quest for wisdom seems to be an abject failure. And yet, some of us still quest-on.
"Philosophy is the study of wisdom, understood as the ability to conduct the human activities; and also as the perfect knowledge of all the things that a man can know for the direction of his life, maintenance of his health, and knowledge of the arts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Philosophy

Very valid questions, but easily resolved with a valid solution to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk

The “demarcation problem” is a struggle to distinguish between Science and Pseudoscience. And I don't have a simple solution. Sometimes today's Woo becomes tomorrow's Wow! : e.g. Plate Tectonics & Germ Theory. Those conjectures were only accepted after they were defined in enough detail to fit a puzzle piece into the whole picture. Can you express your "solution" in a single sentence? :wink:
Note --- If you don't want to over-simplify, in view of trolls & critics, you can message me in the Inbox.

I have started reading some of your musings on 'enformationism' - my first response is: be very careful of what I call a "philosophical trap", you only end up with oxymorons like "ethics of science". "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." — Pieter R van Wyk

I define Laws of Nature simply as “limitations on change”. No ethical implications intended ; unless you imagine those laws as discriminating between Good & Evil, from the perspective of the Programmer. From my cog-in-the-works perspective, they simply steer the evolving cosmos in the direction of Time's Arrow. :nerd:

Excerpt from another reply :

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles. — Pieter R van Wyk

What you call General Systems Theory may be what Jan Smuts encapsulated as Holism. Which is one of the basic principles of my own thesis. It's fundamental to my worldview. :cool:

Holism and Evolution
Orderly Cosmic Transformation
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html
Note 3. What is complex systems science? :    “Complex phenomena are hidden, beyond masking by space and time, through nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence”.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

Claudius van Wyk
https://claudiusvanwyk.academia.edu/

The point I'm pressing is the distinction between the empirical facts of science, which I'm not disputing in the least, and the grounding of these facts in the philosophical and scientific framework through which we understand them. That argument is that our knowledge of the physical universe (world, object) is not knowledge of the universe as it is in itself but of how it appears to us. — Wayfarer

Personally, I have a very parochial view of the world. Except for four years in the navy, my body, with its sensory organs, has seldom experienced the wider world beyond my location, within a radius of a few miles, on the North American continent. Since I live in a small city, I seldom see any stars, except for Venus. So, my "knowledge of the physical universe" is not "as it is in itself", but as reported by humans who have made it their business to explore parts of the universe beyond my ken.

Presumably, those reports --- from scientists, philosophers, explorers --- describe the universe "as it appears" to them. From those varied accounts, I have stitched together a worldview of my own. But, it's still a patchwork, and not knowledge of the world "as it is". And Kant concluded that Ultimate Reality (noumenon) is fundamentally unknowable to humans. He seems to be implying that philosophers are just ordinary humans, who have made it their business to guess (speculate) about non-phenomenal noumena.

And yet, mystics, shamen, prophets, psychonauts, etc, have claimed to see beyond the limits of human senses, with introspection, or extra-sensory perception, or drugs that dull the left brain (rational mind). Should I take their reports as descriptions of what the world is really truly like --- or as it "appears to them"? :wink:

Thank you for the invitation to join this forum. I am joining with some trepidation - I am not a philosopher and I have not any formal qualification in philosophy. But then, according to Jostein Gaarder in 'Sophie's World' - "...the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder ..." I also have to admit that I do not speak any of the peculiar languages 'ology', 'ism' and such, I prefer plain English.
The Problem, from my "faculty of wonder": For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

I too, have no training as a philosopher, and most of my relevant reading prior to retirement has been in the empirical sciences : especially Quantum Physics and Information Theory. But I do "wonder" about non-empirical problems & "why?" questions. So, my retirement hobby is to explore the practical & theoretical implications of my personal worldview*2, which is explained in a website and blog*3.

I haven't read your book, but I have scanned the Google summary*1. Based on that overview, it seems that our worldviews may have some ideas in common, but others that may clash. I'm not familiar with Meta-Mathematics, but I do know a bit about Systems Theory & Holism. I don't meditate, and don't do drugs ; so if we have anything to inter-communicate, it will have to be done in conventional English language, with allowances for a few necessary neologisms. :smile:


*1. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence

Core argument : "It challenges the idea that existence can be adequately captured by concepts, whether through rationalist or phenomenological approaches".
Note --- If we can't understand the world conceptually, and put it into words, do you think we can only explore the world system experientially, via meditation or drugs?

Beyond Conceptualization :
"It argues that existence is not solely a concept but is inherent in the act of being itself, and that we often lose sight of this when trying to define it through language."
Note --- Again, this "argument" seems to dismiss rational Western Philosophy as incapable of dealing with the ontological problems of humanity. Are you recommending something like Sartre's "being-in-itself" or the spiritual awakening of Ram Dass : "Be Here Now"?

Reception and Criticism :
"The book is described as a potentially controversial work, challenging established philosophical ideas.
It has received criticism for its lack of concrete examples and its potential to alienate readers familiar with traditional philosophy."
Note --- My own amateur personal philosophy questions both "established" philosophical concepts, and "classical" concepts of Newtonian Physics.

Summary :
In essence, the book invites readers to question their assumptions about existence and to consider the possibility that a more fundamental understanding of being is needed to address the complexities of human existence and the world around us.
Note --- I don't know if my Information-theoretic worldview provides a "more fundamental understanding of being", but it is certainly different from both traditional religious & scientific ideologies. If your responses seem encouraging, I may even attempt to read your book.



*2. ENFORMATIONISM
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to the ancient worldviews of Materialism and Idealism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's also a Theory–of–Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

*3. Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Yes, according to modern cosmology, the physical universe existed for about 10 billion years without any animation or "cognition" : just malleable matter & causal energy gradually evolving & experimenting with new forms of being ; ways of existing. — Gnomon
Where does the measure 'years' originate, if not through the human experience of the time taken for the Earth to rotate the Sun? — Wayfarer

Obviously, the human mind is doing the measuring in terms of locally conventional increments. But the point is that the physical universe existed long before metaphysical minds. So, logically, the mechanisms of Physics must have had the Potential (the "right stuff") for mental functions all along. Apparently, it just took Time to evolve mental mechanisms (thinking organisms) from the raw materials of Matter & Energy, wondrously produced by the explosion of a long long long ago Black Hole Singularity. Something from What-thing?

Yet, where did that un-actualized pre-bang Potential come from? Is that unknowable Source of Probability (creative power) temporal or eternal? Is it Mathematical (statistical) or Mental (ideal) or Spiritual (G*D)? How and why did the evolving universe of mostly simple hydrogen atoms assemble simple holons (parts) into complex wholes that can self-reflect, and can imagine countless balls of radiant energy (stars) as a living & thinking Cosmos?

Some scientists are now exploring the notion that the Cosmos is a computer*1, processing Information (raw data) into complex Forms with novel functions, such as Thinking & Feeling. But who or what is the Programmer that set-up the system to pursue a Teleology leading to observant & reflective Minds? How do those mindful brains create an ideal mental world within the real physical world? :smile:

PS___ Which came first Mind or Potential?


*1. The idea that the universe is a computer is a fascinating and complex concept explored in digital physics and simulation theory. It suggests that the universe operates based on fundamental principles of computation, where physical laws and processes can be understood as algorithms and information processing. While not universally accepted, this idea has gained traction, particularly with the development of quantum computing and the exploration of the universe's computational capacity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+is+a+computer

On the empirical level, of course we say the cosmos existed long before us. But from the standpoint of critical philosophy, what we mean by “cosmos,” “existence,” or “visibility” only makes sense within the framework of our cognitive faculties. — Wayfarer

Yes, according to modern cosmology, the physical universe existed for about 10 billion years without any animation or "cognition" : just malleable matter & causal energy gradually evolving & experimenting with new forms of being ; ways of existing. So, you could say that the universe was not awake or aware until the last 4 billion years : the fourth trimester. Could that pre-conscious era be described metaphorically as Gestation : the period between Conception and Birth?

The book I'm currently reading is entitled, The Sapient Cosmos, by James Glattfelder. It's published by Essentia Books, which produces "scholarly work relevant to metaphysical idealism". The author was trained as a physicist, and practiced as a mathematician. But he now goes beyond the pragmatic limits of both professions, to explore the world philosophically ; which is to say "meta-physically". He refers to his methodology as "Empirical Metaphysics". What he finds most interesting is the emergence of Meaning in a material world.

Greek "Cosmos" simply means orderly or organized, but it also seems to imply some Teleological Purpose. The Latin root of "Sapient" means, not just cognitive, but also "wise". At this 1/3 point of the book, I'm not sure if the appellation is intended to apply to the physical universe or to the Organizer, whose purpose is being implemented in material & mental forms. As far as I can tell, the author is simply presenting "brute facts", if you can call philosophical deductions factual. And he is not presenting "institutional facts" under the auspices of Science or Religion. Yet, the question remains : did cosmic Mind exist before the emergence of embodied personal Minds? Or, as some postulate, did our accidental (fortuitous) collective human minds merge into a Cosmic Mind?

Personally, I am not inclined to worship a sentient world, or the implicit Inventor of a "mind-created world", nor to join a social group centered on a relationship with a Cosmos that doesn't communicate or correspond with me. I'm just exploring the wider world to satisfy my own philosophical curiosity. Am I missing some deeper meaning here? :smile:

The approach in the Mind Created World is epistemological rather than ontological - about the nature of knowing rather than about what the world is made from or of. I said 'The constitution of material objects is a matter for scientific disciplines (although I’m well aware that the ultimate nature of these constituents remains an open question in theoretical physics).' Also notice the word 'spiritual' does not appear in it. — Wayfarer

I think your Epistemological approach is more appropriate for a philosophy forum, than the Empirical methods that some advocate. Besides, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics seemed to open the door to Epistemological discussions. But injecting Philosophy into Physics often raises objections of Mysticism and Woo-woo. So, we typically avoid using the fraught term "spiritual" when referring to Mental, as opposed to Material, essences & causes. Does Phenomenology successfully bridge over the spooky abyss of Spiritualism? :smile:

↪Wayfarer
I am not blaming, merely asking a question. According to the Oxford Dictionary, philosophy is:
1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
2. the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.
3. a theory or attitude that guides one's behaviour.
So, after 2,600 years of this study we still have armed conflict, poverty and hunger, we are destroying our own environment and we are somehow on the verge of being taken over by artificial intelligence. Why is that?
You mention "unruly human nature" - so, do we accept that the "human nature" that has been studied for this 2,600 years is in fact strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war? — Pieter R van Wyk

As the dictionary noted, Philosophy is the "study" of Nature, including human nature. And it has produced many "theories" for thinking about the problems you listed. But human culture has also developed Religion and Science to do something "practical" about our problems.

Religion typically blames errant human nature for human problems, and prescribes tolerant endurance (Faith, attitude adjustment, virtue development), and/or busy work (rosary & rituals) to keep your mind off your troubles, but postpones any final resolution to another time & place. Meanwhile, Science has produced technological fixes for many of our problems with Nature, but has done little to remedy our troubles with Human Nature*1.

So, it seems that we can either wait patiently for our absconded Savior to return, or philosophically sigh that perhaps another few million years of Evolution will perfect the imperfections of Incomplete Human Nature*2. Meanwhile, we can continue to "study" the People Problem from various perspectives*3. Perhaps beginning with the mote in the eye of the observer. :wink:


*1. “Hell Is Other People”:
Jean-Paul Sartre on Personal Relationships
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/02/08/hell-is-other-people/

*2. Incomplete Nature :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

*3. Buddhism presents a nuanced view of human nature, emphasizing both its potential for goodness and the presence of inherent challenges. While acknowledging our capacity for greed, hatred, and delusion, Buddhism also teaches that we possess Buddha nature, an inherent purity and potential for enlightenment. This nature can be obscured by negative mental traits, but through spiritual practice, we can remove these obstructions and realize our true, enlightened state.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=buddhism+human+nature

My position is closer to what might be called a phenomenological form of idealism: it asserts that there is no reality outside of some perspective, not in a merely epistemological sense (i.e., that we only know from a point of view), but in a deeper sense—namely, that the very structure of the world, as intelligible and coherent, is constituted in and through the relation to mind. Not an individual mind, of course, but the noetic act—the perceiving, structuring, and meaning-bestowing – that makes any world appear in the first place. — Wayfarer

I'm not very well-versed in Phenomenology. But it points to a key difference in worldviews upon which many of the contentious posts on this forum pivot : Realism vs Idealism. The notion that our world is actually an idea in the Mind of God (world mind), may be unintelligible, not just to secular scientists, but also to many spiritual religionists. It just goes against our intuition of Self vs Other.

Which, I suppose is the point of the Buddha's "non-dual unstructured awareness". Personally, I can accept it intellectually, but not experientially. However, the Matrix and Tron movies gave me some imagery by which to imagine a local mind within an encompassing non-local Mind. :cool:


Substance metaphysics and phenomenology represent distinct, yet sometimes intertwined, philosophical approaches. Substance metaphysics, particularly in the Aristotelian tradition, focuses on identifying and defining the fundamental, underlying realities (substances) that exist independently and support properties. Phenomenology, on the other hand, prioritizes the study of conscious experience and how things appear to us, often questioning the possibility or necessity of grasping underlying substances.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=substance+metaphysics+vs+phenomenology+

In philosophical idealism, the "mind of God" refers to the idea that the ultimate reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual, and that God's mind is the source and sustainer of all existence. This concept is central to many forms of idealism, particularly subjective idealism and objective idealism, where the perceived world is seen as existing within the mind of God or as a manifestation of divine consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+mind+of+god

What are your thoughts regarding Mental Actions as Causal Actions? — I like sushi

FWIW, one kind of Mental Causation is defined in the science of Cybernetics : "Cybernetics is the study of goal directed systems that receive feedback from their operating environment and use that information to self regulate."

In a guided missile or remote-control drone, the "Goal" or target or purpose originates outside the physical system, in the mind of the goal-setter. That Goal, once established in the system, sets-off a chain of cause & effect which guides the missile to its intended target. Likewise, in almost everything that humans do, a mental action (intention or inclination) is what initiates the subsequent chain of causation. It's a future-imagining Self that regulates the system, not necessarily by internally adapting to feedback, but by pointing beyond in the direction of the target, and by defining (setting values) what counts as on-track. :smile:

What Deacon and others are trying to do, is accomodate purposefulness in an extended naturalist framework - to see how purpose can be understood without appealing to divine creation, but also without reducing living things to machines or bits of matter. — Wayfarer

Like Deacon, I try to stay close to the scientific evidence in order to avoid picturing the Cosmic Cause as a Biblical Creator, magically producing a world of mini-mes*1 (little gods) to serve his ego. Teleology seems to imply a human-like creator, for which the evidence is ambiguous. So, I typically refer to the First Cause as something like the Programmer of a computer program. In which case Teleonomy*2 might better apply. And the ultimate purpose may be more exploratory/experiential than definitive.

I do see evidence that the Universe began in an inexplicable state of high Energy & low Entropy, and is gradually complexifying and organizing into living & thinking things. Also, Time's Arrow seems to be pointing to some unknowable future state. However, modern science has found a fundamental element of unpredictability (uncertainty, nondeterminism) underlying that obvious progress. So, the evolutionary "machine" seems to have some degree of freedom to explore options as it progresses in a general direction. In any case, we are just guessing about the motives (if any) of the Prime Mover (if any). :smile:

PS___ My reason for quoting Philip Ball was to indicate his use of "Information" rather than "Consciousness" as a causal force. Not to promote Teleology or Teleonomy.



*1. What is Mini-Me a parody of?
Mike Myers has acknowledged that the character was directly inspired by the character of Majai in the 1996 film The Island of Dr. Moreau, who is similarly a miniature version of Marlon Brando's titular villain character. ___ Wikipedia

*2. Teleology and teleonomy are related concepts, but they differ in how they explain goal-directed behavior. Teleology refers to explanations based on an inherent purpose or end goal, often implying a conscious or supernatural design. Teleonomy, on the other hand, describes goal-directed behavior resulting from a pre-programmed mechanism, like genetic coding, without implying a conscious or preordained purpose, according to a philosophy forum and Wikipedia. . . . .
Teleology suggests a purpose for a system, while teleonomy describes a purpose within a system.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=teleonomy+vs+teleology

Much of the debate about purpose revolves around an ancient idea, telos. The ancient Greek term telos simply means end, goal, or purpose. — Wayfarer

I just came across a quote in physicist James Glattfelder's 2025 book on The Emergence of Information, Consciousness, and Meaning. After discussing Energy & Entropy, along with Dissipative Structures, he concludes : "However, one of organic life's most stunning features still remains obscure, namely agency, intentionality, volition, and purpose. Phillip Ball reports on a workshop held in 2016 at the Santa Fe Institute investigating the uniqueness of terrestrial biology" :

"It's hardly surprising that there was no consensus. But one message that emerged very clearly was that, if there's a kind of physics behind biological teleology and agency, it has something to do with the same concept that seems to have been installed at the heart of fundamental physics itself : Information." :smile:

So, your model seems to me a bit like the 'world soul' present in some hellenistic philosophies, i.e. the universe as a whole as a sort of living being. So it seems to me that you are proposing a dualistic model or a dual-aspect monism, where mind and the 'physical' are two aspects of the whole. — boundless

Yes. Enformationism*1 is similar in some ways to ancient World Soul and Panpsychism worldviews. But it's based on modern science, specifically Quantum Physics and Information Science. The notion of a BothAnd Principle*2 illustrates how a Holistic worldview can encompass both Mind & Body under the singular heading of Potential or Causation or what I call EnFormAction. Here's a review of a Philosophy Now article in my blog. :smile:


*1. Dual Aspect Monism :
Another article in the Philosophy Now magazine attempts to find “a balance between two extreme views of consciousness. . . . Physicalism and panpsychism sit either end of a metaphysical seesaw, and when one is in the ascendancy it is only by bringing the other unduly low.” The author, Dr. Sam Coleman, proposes a different kind of stuff (essence) that is “neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and the physical.” The “one fundamental stuff” he's referring to is Consciousness, but for technical purposes I think that the scientific term “Information” fits the description better. As Claude Shannon discovered in mid-20th century, Information is not just ideas in human minds, it is also the substance of physical objects; it's both physical and mental. Coleman also offers a novel term to replace Panpsychism : Panqualityism. He admits that name is a merely a placeholder for unspecified “neutral properties” (potentials) that are able to emerge into reality as either physical or metaphysical, depending on the context. Yet again, Information already has this monist/dualist BothAnd property, which could explain how metaphysical minds emerge from the functioning of material brains. It might also suggest how a physical universe could emerge from a mathematical Singularity consisting of nothing but the information for constructing a universe from scratch : a program for creation.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page14.html

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

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's Will) of the axiomatic eternal First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Yes. In other words the problem for the physicalist is: can we explain the 'strong emergence' of life and mind in purely physical terms given that reductionism seems to fail? — boundless

That is indeed "the problem" for explaining Purpose & Emergence in reductive physical terms. Which is why philosophers use holistic Meta-Physical terms, such as teleology to explain, not how, but why complex self-sustaining & self-organizing systems emerge from a world presumably ruled by the destructive & dissipating second law of thermodynamics (entropy). It's also why I coined a new term, EnFormAction, that refers to the constructive force in physics, formerly labeled dismissively as Negentropy. :smile:


EnFormAction :
The concept of a river of creative causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, Negentropy, etc, and in metaphysical idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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 supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Well, I think that 'emergence' in fact doesn't have 'theological' or even 'teleological' connotations for most people. One example I made is how 'pressure' of a gas 'emerges' from the properties of the particles it is composed of. Yes, for the reductionist version of physicalism life is an 'accident'. Still, it is curious that in a reductionist model something like 'life' would eventually happen. — boundless

A "weak"*1 scientific interpretation of evolution from simple to complex is specifically formulated to avoid any metaphysical (teleological or theological) implications. But a "strong"*2 interpretation directly addresses the philosophical implications that are meaningful to systematic & cosmological thinkers*3. Likewise a "weak" interpretation of the Anthropic Principle*4 can avoid dealing with Meaning by looking only at isolated facts. Both "weak" models are reductionist, while the "strong" models are holistic. The Strong models don't shy away from generalizing the evidence (facts). Instead, they look at the whole system in order to satisfy philosophical "curiosity" about Why such appearances of design should & could occur in a random mechanical process. :smile:


*1. Weak emergence describes a situation where a system's properties or behavior, though seemingly novel, can be fully explained by the interactions of its constituent parts and their underlying rules. It implies that while the emergent behavior is a product of the system's components, it's not fundamentally novel or irreducible. Examples include traffic jams, flocking behavior of birds, or the structure of a school of fish.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=weak+emergence

*2. Strong emergence describes a system property that arises from the interaction of its parts, but which cannot be predicted or understood from the properties of those parts alone, or from the interactions between them. It implies that the whole is more than the sum of its parts in a fundamental way, with novel behaviors or properties emerging that are irreducible to the lower-level components
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=strong+emergence

*3. Weak emergence and strong emergence are two ways of describing how complex systems exhibit properties not found in their individual components. Weak emergence refers to properties that, while not immediately obvious from the components, can still be explained and predicted by understanding the interactions of those components. Strong emergence, on the other hand, describes properties that cannot be predicted or explained solely by examining the components and their interactions, suggesting something genuinely new arises at the higher level.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=weak+emergence+vs+strong+emergence

*4. The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) suggests the universe's properties are specifically arranged to allow for the existence of intelligent observers, like humans. It implies that the universe's laws and constants are not just compatible with life, but that they necessitate it. This contrasts with the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), which simply states that we observe a universe compatible with our existence because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=strong+anthropic+principle

True, and the sacrifice of Jesus has clear magical connotations: sacrifice this human, get good crops. So the sacrifice is celebrated at Easter, around the time of the spring equinox, which vaguely coincides with the last frost date in temperate zones. It's a fertility rite. — frank

The myth of god/human sacrifice probably made more sense back in the day, when animal sacrifices were mandatory for many official religions. And the occasional human sacrifice was reputed to be more powerful for getting the goodies. But the sacrifice of a god was of cosmic importance. Obviously some myths were narrative explanations for natural events such as the rebirth of Spring emerging from the death of Winter. Today, we have less inspiring but more technical explanations for natural functions. :smile:



Gods who sacrificed themselves :
Many deities in mythology are associated with sacrifice, including self-sacrifice for the benefit of others or to achieve a greater purpose. Some prominent examples include Jesus (Christianity), Osiris (Egyptian), Dionysus (Greek), and Odin (Norse). These gods often die and are reborn, or undergo symbolic deaths and resurrections, in narratives that explore themes of redemption, transformation, and the cyclical nature of life and death.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+gods+sacrificed+themselves

Are myths always this way? Or is Christianity a special case? — frank

I guess that myth-makers create their god-stories for the same reason parents tell their own children about the tooth fairy : to get compliance without argument. "If you do this, something good will happen, But if you don't . . . .". Gods bring the goodies, or not, depending on your obedience.

In the case of religious beliefs, professional priests exploit adults for their inborn trust in authorities*1, in order to get political compliance without rational arguments. Even adults, when they reach the age of reason, may begin to doubt the official stories. But when everyone they know seems to believe the myth, they may go along to get along.

Moreover, communal myths*2 tend to bond individuals into team players and tribal roles. Socrates was condemned for "impiety" : not playing along with the official local worldview. Philosophers tend to ask embarrassing questions of parents & authorities about fairies & gods. :smile:


*1. Born to Believe :
The idea that people are "born to believe what we're told" stems from our inherent trust in authority figures and the narratives presented to us, particularly during childhood. This tendency is shaped by our early socialization and the narratives we're exposed to, which can influence our perceptions of reality. While this inclination is natural, it's also important to develop critical thinking skills and question information, even when it comes from trusted sources.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=born+to+beleive+what+we%27re+told

*2. Communal bonding :
Myths serve as a foundational element of cultural identity, providing a shared narrative that shapes a community's understanding of itself, its history, and its place in the world. They establish social hierarchies, define roles, and offer explanations for the world's mysteries, fostering a sense of belonging and guiding individual and collective behavior.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=myth+core+of+cultural+identity

Sorry I missed your post. Anyway, assuming that what you are saying here is right, we should ask ourselves to explain how it can be right. Life has goal-oriented behavior, how does that 'emerge' from something that doesn't have anything like that. And assuming that in some ways it can, can we give a theoretical explanation for that? — boundless

The Materialist explanation for the evolutionary emergence of animated & motivated matter is based on random accidents : that if you roll the dice often enough, strings of order will be found within a random process*1. But they tend to avoid the term "Emergence", because for some thinkers it suggests that the emergence was pre-destined, presumably by God. And that's a scientific no-no. So, instead of "emergence", they may call Life a fortuitous "accident".

However, another perspective on Abiogenesis*2 is that the Cosmos is inherently self-organizing. And that notion implies or assumes a creative goal-oriented process, and ultimately Teleology. My personal Enformationism*3 thesis is an attempt to provide a non-religious philosophical answer to the mystery of Life & Mind emerging from the random roiling of atoms. But if you prefer a "theory" from a famous & credentialed philosopher, check-out A.N. Whitehead's book Process and Reality*4. :smile:



*1. Order from Chaos :
Yes, order can indeed arise from chaos in various contexts, including evolution. While often perceived as random and unpredictable, chaotic systems can, under certain conditions, exhibit self-organization and lead to the emergence of new structures and patterns. This is observed in natural phenomena like ecosystems and even in the formation of stars and planets.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evolution+order+from+chaos

*2. Abiogenesis :
The origin of life, or abiogenesis, is a complex scientific question with no single, universally accepted answer. However, the prevailing hypothesis is that life arose from non-living matter through a process of increasing complexity, starting with simple organic molecules and culminating in self-replicating entities enclosed within membranes. This process likely involved the formation of a habitable planet, the synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, and the emergence of cell membranes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+did+life+emerge

*3. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to the ancient worldviews of Materialism and Idealism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's also a Theory – of – Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*4.Process Teleology :
Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy redefines teleology, moving away from a predetermined, goal-oriented view to one of creativity and becoming. In his system, the universe is not static but constantly evolving through processes of "becoming". Teleology, in this context, is not about reaching a preordained end, but rather about the ongoing creative advance and the integration of past and present within each moment of experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+teleology

Today, most right-wingers live in or near a city — Gnomon
Really? My experience would be attune more to Hypericin's that they are in the country for the reasons they mentioned. Where did you get the idea they are in the city? Your image does not prove they live in the city, from what I can see; it is showing states and their denomination, not city. — unimportant

I live in a conservative Southern state, so even city-dwellers tend toward the right-wing. But mainly what I meant by that remark was that the country mouse conservatives have traditionally been either farmers, working the soil, of small-towners providing services for farmers. Yet today, in the US, most farming is done by machines --- factory farms --- and most small towns are now suburbs of large cities. So, in my small city, when you see a man wearing cowboy boots & hats, odds are that he drives a pickup truck as a political image statement, not for working the soil or riding horses.

What you don't see on the US map, is that the red states, especially in the West, are mostly unpopulated, and the few citizens live in small cities, like DesMoines, Iowa. Thousands of acres of wheat & corn are grown on "factory farms, and the grub-work laborers are mostly migrant Mexicans. However, in the Eastern Megalopolis*1, it's the opposite : very little non-urban land, but a significant percentage of the population votes Conservative. So, again, Right-Wing is more an indication of social-group than of location or occupation. They may no longer be rural or urban working class, but they identify with them.

Also, for many if not most Conservatives, their political leaning is determined by their religion. In the US, the most popular religions are Protestant, and a significant number are labeled as "Christian Right". Even the sweat-labor Catholic Mexicans tend to vote Conservative, if they vote at all. English religions may be different, so I suspect that British Conservatives may be less motivated by religion than by a reaction to years of Liberal politics, that favored big cities instead of small towns. For them, the ancient libertine City vs puritan Country mouse dichotomy may still apply. :smile:

PS___ My farm-raised father worked in a steel mill, and joined the workers union. But his political leanings were mostly influenced by his conservative protestant religion. So. even though he appreciated the wage & work-condition improvements, he did not like the socialist rhetoric in union hall meetings.



*1. Conservative Elites Prefer Living in Progressive Elite Cities
https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/conservative-elites-prefer-living

I don't know but all I know is that rural britain is extremely right wing and I am wondering if it has always been like this or something that precipitated in recent years. I could not speak on any other country. Just my the experience of my own country. — unimportant

Same in the US. See map below.

Aesop's fables (500BC) enshrined that political polarization in the story of the liberal City Mouse and the conservative Country Mouse. Back then, cities were the exception to the rule. But in modern cultures the country mice still seem to view the sybaritic city mice as immoral and living in squalor, crime, & fear. Moreover, the city mice are weak & interdependent, while the country mice are strong & independent. Today, most right-wingers live in or near a city, but feel that they live above it. Today, the difference is more a state of mind, than a place on the map. :cool:


LIBERAL BIDEN CITIES vs CONSERVATIVE TRUMP COUNTRY

It's not phenomenology at all. There's a glaring omission in your model, as philosophy, but as it's situated squarely in the middle of the blind spot of science, I'm guessing it's something you wouldn't recognize. That blind spot is the consequence of the methodical exclusion or bracketing out of the first-person ground of existence. — Wayfarer

Since Philosophy is primarily the study of Metaphysics (meaning), its practitioners are more likely to focus on the subject than the object on any topic. And, the "blind spot" is the blurry blob that we see out of the corner of the eye. Both kinds of observers may be missing something important. I won't jump in the middle of this finger-pointing, except to list a few excerpts from a recent non-technical article on the notion of a Blind Spot in Science. :cool:


The Blind Spot
by Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser & Evan Thompson
(two physicists and a philosopher)
https://aeon.co/essays/the-blind-spot-of-science-is-the-neglect-of-lived-experience
Note --- my bold & italics

# Two Worldviews : "Behind the Blind Spot sits the belief that physical reality has absolute primacy in human knowledge, a view that can be called scientific materialism. In philosophical terms, it combines scientific objectivism (science tells us about the real, mind-independent world) and physicalism (science tells us that physical reality is all there is)."

# Metaphysics : "Experience is just as fundamental to scientific knowledge as the physical reality it reveals."

# The black hole in Science : "Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness.""

# What is Physical? : "We reject this move. Whatever ‘physical’ means should be determined by physics and not armchair reflection. After all, the meaning of the term ‘physical’ has changed dramatically since the 17th century. Matter was once thought to be inert, impenetrable, rigid, and subject only to deterministic and local interactions."

# What is Real? : "Alfred North Whitehead . . . . he argued that what we call ‘reality’ is made up of evolving processes that are equally physical and experiential."

# Ding An Sich : "Scientific materialists will argue that the scientific method enables us to get outside of experience and grasp the world as it is in itself."
Note --- "Ding an sich : It denotes the idea of an object or reality as it exists independently of human perception and understanding, a realm beyond our direct experience". {Kant's version of Plato's Ideal)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ding+an+sich

# Methodological Exclusion : "In general terms, here’s how the scientific method works. First, we set aside aspects of human experience on which we can’t always agree, such as how things look or taste or feel."

# Exclusion Delusion : "To finally ‘see’ the Blind Spot is to wake up from a delusion of absolute knowledge. It’s also to embrace the hope that we can create a new scientific culture, in which we see ourselves both as an expression of nature and as a source of nature’s self-understanding. We need nothing less than a science nourished by this sensibility for humanity to flourish in the new millennium."

# Summary : "Such an approach not only distorts the truth, but creates a false sense of distance between ourselves and the world. That divide arises from what we call the Blind Spot, which science itself cannot see. In the Blind Spot sits experience: the sheer presence and immediacy of lived perception"
.

In order to halt and reverse these trends it will require a coordinated global effort between nation states. — Punshhh

Some Utopian sci-fi stories envision such a global, or solar-system-wide, or multi-galaxy foundation based on some form of representative or direct democracy, so that the numerical power of the lower classes (98%) can balance the economic power of the upper classes (2%).

However, coordination between government "blocks" seems to depend more on the invisible-hand*1 of self-interest economic trade (market forces), than on rational political agreements. On the other hand, there is another invisible hand at play : Natural Forces. So, as natural disasters impinge on the flow of money, I suspect that international political changes will be grudgingly instituted by Oligarchs, whose fiefdoms are bleeding cash. :smile:


*1. What Is the Invisible Hand in Economics?
The "invisible hand" is a metaphor describing how, in a free market economy, individual self-interest can lead to positive outcomes for society as a whole. It suggests that individuals, acting in their own best interest, unintentionally promote the public good through their economic activities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=invisible+hand+economics




INVISIBLE HAND OF NATURAL FORCES

If such a potentiality is not to be found in the parts of these systems, then the alternative I can think of is that it is to be found in the order of the 'cosmos'. In this case, the emergence of life is a potentiality enfolded in the regularities of the whole universe which remains implicit until the right conditions are met.

I don't think that assigning a property to the 'whole' - indeed, the whole universe - is something alien to physics. In fact, the conservation laws can be thought as being properties of 'isolated systems', rather than a (weakly) emergent features of their parts.

Of course, I have no idea of how such a 'potentiality' could be 'expressed' in a theory. — boundless

The electro-magnetic Potential of an AA battery is "found" in the order (organization ; structure : chemistry) of the metals & bases within. But scientists can't see or measure that statistical possibility (property) in situ, yet they can measure the Current flowing in a complete (whole) circuit, of which the battery is the power source. From that voltage measurement, they infer the latent prior potential. As you implied, the Potential is in the whole system, not the parts.

A human person is said to have Potential if she has the necessary qualities (intelligence, training, motivation) that can be put together for success in her future life trajectory. The Potential (power to succeed) is not in the parts, but emerges from the interaction of those elements. Cultural success emerges from applied human Potential. Similarly, the holistic process we call "Life" emerges from a convergence of natural laws & causal energy & material substrates that, working together, motivate inorganic matter to grow, reproduce, and continue to succeed in staving off entropy. Likewise, a Cosmos has Potential if it exhibits creative qualities (Causation), and an inclination toward some future state (arrow of time).

Cosmic Potential*1 was expressed in theory by Plato (Forms ; world soul ; demiurge : necessity). None of which would be accepted by modern scientists, to explain the gradual & eventual emergence of a habitable planet from an ancient ex nihilo explosion of omnidirectional Energy, and its limiting Laws. So, I have posited a thesis of Cosmic Potential (EnFormAction*2) that combines Thermodynamics with Information Theory to explain, philosophically, how & why questioning beings have emerged from a universe of 27% Dark Matter, 68% Dark Energy, plus a remainder of 5% ordinary matter that we can detect with our senses and our sensors. :nerd:


*1. In Plato's cosmology, the "cosmic potentiality" refers to the underlying, non-physical principles that shape and govern the universe. It's not a tangible, measurable entity, but rather a set of ideal forms and mathematical relationships that provide the blueprint for the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+cosmic+potential

*2. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's Will) of an axiomatic eternal First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Scientists call that causal Will by various names, such as Energy, Power, Force, Vitality. They can't say what it is (what it's made of), they merely infer its abstract existence from its effects on matter.
Note2 --- I also call that implicit "source of possibility" an eternal Pool of Potential. But Potential alone, without Intelligence & Intention could not impart Purpose to the Actual Cosmos.