I hate to bring in Wittgenstein here, but some of his ideas can be useful in these debates. That is to say, you must try to not mix "language games" of the personal god variety and the philosophical god variety. — schopenhauer1

Thanks, but on an open forum like this it's not easy to avoid crossing invisible linguistic lines. I am not familiar with Wittgenstein "language", but I am well-versed in Judeo-Christian idioms. And I have some knowledge of philosophical terminology dating back to the Greeks. So, my use of the non-traditional spelling "G*D"*1 --- along with a variety of other terms, such as "First Cause" --- is a reference to what became known, derisively, among enlightenment era Catholics, as the "god of the philosophers", (an oblique reference to Spinoza). What I'm referring to is the perennial conundrum*2 for abstract thinkers since the first language emerged among men.

That still unsolved mystery dates back to the clear-sky Mesopotamian Astronomers --- perhaps the first mathematical scientists --- who wondered why most stars wandered aimlessly across the "firmament", but others moved in neat cycles that appealed to the order-seeking human eye. Since such circles are not found in Nature, apart from human constructions, they attributed the controlling influence to humanoid gods, and developed a geometric language for discussing the mystery. But the inherent problem of epi-cycles confounded even the mathematically talented Greeks, until one man on a cloudy-sky island, intuited a mathematical controller that he called "gravity" (heaviness), which is a Quality, not a material object, or deity.

A couple of centuries later, another singular thinker introduced a new, counterintuitive, way to think about Gravity, as the influence of "warped space". Which is just another spooky way of talking about the "remarkable effectiveness" of immaterial Mathematics in the material world. So, what ancient Astrologers attributed to humanoid gods, we now just take for granted as the organizing power of Nature, imagined as a pure abstraction. Yet even Einstein felt the need to use taboo "G" terms to describe something that is immaterial, but effective in organizing the material world into the "endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin saw in Nature, and attributed to an unspecified "creator"*3.

Thus, the language of Science has evolved over the millennia. But keeps coming back to the Central Mystery of philosophy : the cause of all order & beauty in the world. Yet some, who think of themselves as philosophers or scientists, are afraid of certain taboo terms, and still run away from the ghostly invisible Causes of the world. And blame their aversion on the historical tendency of the common people to think in Materialistic & Humanoid language, instead of the Mathematical & Holistic abstractions of philosophy. They think they can define the problem away, by calling it "Religious BS". :nerd:



*1. 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 worshipped, but appreciated as the organizing mind of 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 & Causation is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*2. What is the perennial problem of philosophy?
The problems connected with the meaning of life, a providential order, political ideals, control over how we live, and the justification or criticism of legal and moral practices are perennial and philosophical.
https://archive.philosophersmag.com/perennial-philosophical-problems/

*3. Darwin's Creator :
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/darwin-quotes/grandeur-view-life.html

I think that 'holism' per se is not enough to answer this objection.
Also, IMO 'energy' is a property rather than a 'physical substance'. A rock is not 'made by' mass-energy but has mass-energy. Unfortunately, I think that even physicists themselves sometimes indulge in some confusion about this.
We can't say that 'fundamental physical reality' is 'energy' because 'energy' is a property. — boundless

Yes, Ontology is the most debatable aspect of Philosophy*1. Anything created from scratch is indeed dependent for its existence on the Creator. But I don't see how the self-existing Ontological creator --- what I call eternal/infinite Potential --- could be dependent on the space-time creature. Anyway, we're getting into some esoteric & metaphorical concepts here, that might snidely label as "BS". And, as he might pointedly point-out : "it's way over Gnomon's little pointy head".

In the links below*2, Energy is described as a "property of a system", and Holism is about Systems, not things. So, systemic properties can only be rationally inferred, not physically observed. Hence, we don't know what Energy is, in a material sense, we only know what it does. Likewise, we don't know what G*D is, only what it does : to serve as a hypothetical explanation for the existence of everything in our world. :smile:

*1. Varieties of Ontological Dependence :
A crucial notion in metaphysics is that of one entity depending for its existence upon another entity—not in a merely causal sense, but in a deeper, ontological sense
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dependence-ontological/

*2. Is this correct 'energy is a property of matter?
No, energy is a property of a system, and work is done when the system energy is re-distributrd among the bodies of mass in the system. . . . .
Yes and no. We do not know what energy is. It is invisible. We only find it as a number that emerges from specific calculations.
https://www.quora.com › Is-this-correct-energy-is-a-pro...

SNIDELY WHIPLASH

But if G*D is not simple, i.e. if G*D is composite, then it necessarily depends on the parts. If those parts were to 'separate', G*D is no more. BTW, G*D being simple doesn't mean that G*D has no properties, just that G*D has no parts. — boundless

Yes. To portray G*D as a "composite", of which we humans are the parts, seems to be a materialistic/physicalist notion. It views G*D as a mechanism with interdependent interacting parts. A machine (e.g. a watch) is indeed dependent on its constituent parts. Take away one cog and the machine no longer functions properly.

But my hypothetical god-model is more meta-physical, and imagines G*D as Enfernal (infinite/eternal) Potential, and our space-time world as one of infinitely many possible Actualized systems. Potential is not a thing that can be divided into smaller things. Instead, Potential is more like a Whole which is more than the sum of its parts. The "more than" is not more Parts, but more Potential. Just as physical Energy is not a material object, meta-physical Potential is infinite and inexhaustible.

So, G*D/Potential is simple in the sense of not being composed of many inter-dependent mechanical elements. A quantum physics metaphor is the hypothetical Universal Energy Field*1 (or Vacuum Energy*2, or Dark Energy). It's a mathematical continuum, not a material mechanism. Since the field of empty space is boundless, and its "grid points" are only mathematically defined --- no extension in space or time --- the Field is not diminished or increased by the popup particles that we interpret as electrons, etc. :smile:

PS___ Since our language is Materialistic, that Holistic notion may be hard to wrap your mind around, but It was presented back in 1926 by Biologist Jan Smuts in his Holism and Evolution.



*1. The Universal Field Theory :
The U F T is not a physics theory in a classical sense. It is rather a philosophical theory explaining Why and How physical phenomena appear.
https://theuniversalfieldtheory.com/

*2. Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

VACUUM ENERGY IMAGINED AS STORMY SEA OF POTENTIAL ENERGY
Nothing there until Potential is Actualized

I think that the argument goes like: if God weren't simple, i.e. it God was composed of parts (which themsleves are entities) then it could not be eternal, or at least God would be contingent. God would be ontologically dependent on its parts.
In other words, God's ontological necessity and eternity requires an ontological simplicity.
Anyway, maybe you could say that some aspects of God/Whole evolve and some aspects do not, in order to accept both a panendeistic world view and God's eternity and necessity. But I am not sure if this helps. — boundless

I don't agree with that arbitrary conditional hypothetical if-then scenario. It seems to be placing restrictions on what an omnipotent deity can or cannot do*1. If there are no parts or aspects, then what is G*D*2 the Whole of? That negative definition of Perfection seems to be a bunch of nothing : no boundaries, no parts, no change. no properties, no place for an evolving world with imperfect creatures. Nothing to do : Eternally Boring.

The idealistic concept of a perfect deity --- who is also good, merciful, and loving? --- is a nice neat geometric notion, with no content : an ideal empty sphere that is infinite & unbounded. And it leaves open the question of how such timeless perfection could possibly create a space-time world where good & evil are in constant combat. To maintain their ideal geometric deity definition, the philosophical argument of Theodicy was forced to blame the creatures (victims of evil) instead of the Creator of the Cosmic System. Which is also how monotheistic Judaism was transformed into polytheistic Christianity. Henceforth, theology had to reconcile the existence of dueling dual (or a Trinity) gods, forever fighting over the fate of the creation.

I can't make sense of either argument, A> Monotheism :God is a perfect faultless Whole, and He/r relationship to the imperfect faulty Parts is all top-down. Hence God's perfection is uncontaminated by the limitations of space-time and good/evil. B> Polytheism : God is all good, but He/r evil twin is competing for the crown of world ruler. And spoiling the ideal simplicity of indivisible Oneness. Therefore, I can't accept the notion of G*D as Necessity without Possibilty.

On the other hand, I can only guess that G*D is not frozen into a boundless timeless changeless blocktime popsicle, but is instead a dynamic entity capable of creating an imperfect world internally without compromising He/r own boundlessness or wholeness. Just as a human mind can imagine a Utopian or Dystopian world without reducing its own unity & wholeness, a G*D-mind could move imaginary chess pieces around without compromising its own integrity. As some have expressed the idea : G*D is dreaming our world, so our "real" existence is imaginary or fictional from the perspective of the dreamer. :smile:

*1. How can you define Infinity or limit Eternity? :
Einstein liked inventing phrases such as "God does not play dice," "The Lord is subtle but not malicious." On one occasion Bohr answered, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."
https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae63.htm

*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 worshipped, 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

Well, I wasn't talking about my ideas on the matter. But anyway, the 'standard' philosophical position about God (even for the classical theists) is that God is simple, unchanging and transcends time. Spinoza accepted this kind of view. If you say that 'Deus' changes, then yeah I think that my objections do not apply strictly speaking. Still, by 'statistical' you don't mean 'probabilistic'. Probabilism is just as incompatible as determinism to free will/agency (choices are not random). — boundless

The definition of God as "simple & unchanging" may or may not be true ; but it's irrelevant to you & me. I have no way of verifying that "standard position". But, in the evolving space-time world, where you and I are operating, Complexity and Change are the context from which we vainly try to imagine a First Cause capable of producing an evolving world. Presumably, enfernal G*D does not evolve, but He/r space-time creation may be a machine for evolving little gods.

I disagree about the relevance of Probability to Free Will*1. Calvinistic Classical Physics assumed that the fate of the world is pre-determined by the absolute Will of God. But Quantum Physics has undermined the philosophical certainty of that presumption. According to 21st century science, the physical foundation of reality is Relative, not absolute, and Uncertain, not pre-destined, and Organic, not Mechanistic. The Probability "gap" in quantum physics is anywhere a mind makes a measurement. No minds : no gaps in Determinism.

So, either G*D screwed-up and left some accidental statistical gaps in the mechanism of Fatalism. Or Sh/e programmed our little bubble of space-time with teleological options that allow some brainy organisms to choose from the Possibility menu as it suits their own purposes. The link below points out that Determinism is a debatable guess about ultimate reality, while indeterminate statistical Probability is as close to certain knowledge as human science can get*2. :smile:



*1. Is FreeWill Fake Agency? :
After those scenic side-tracks, he finally gets around to “unpacking free will”. For his analysis, you can read the article. Here, I’ll only mention a couple of points. 1) “Trying to account for choice at the level of neurons . . . wouldn’t provide any causal account”. That would be like looking for Meaning in the circuits of a motherboard. 2) “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”. Finally, he looks at “Freewill as Phenomenal Experience”, and says “Although this naïve view has largely been abandoned by serious thinkers, it can still be useful : what difference does it make if you believe that free will is an illusion? Would you no longer make any choices at all?”. In his considered opinion, “free will is a puzzle but it is not an illusion”. To that, I say “amen”.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page26.html

*2. Probability vs Determinism :
Determinism coexists as easily with probability as it does with ignorance. This is because determinism is an ontological* matter while probability is an epistemological one.
https://www.quora.com/If-determinism-is-accurate-does-probability-exist

As to "how", I must assume that the binding chains of natural Cause & Effect have some "gaps" or "loopholes" that can be exploited by Autonomous Agents — Gnomon
Ok. But how these 'gaps' arise in a pantheistic/panentheistic/pandeistic/panendeistic system? — boundless

Ha! You'll have to ask the Deus why He/r system of Cause & Effect is not strictly dictatorial & deterministic, but statistical, and frivolously creating novel arrangements of matter & energy as a basement hobby. Apparently you think the Deity is incapable of internal change, or oblivious to the little independent-minded creatures running around inside the Whole. Either our evolving world is accidental or intentional, or Deus is just having a bad dream.

All I can do is guess : that the evolutionary system was intentionally designed to produce living & thinking creatures, with abilities that allow for some self-determination. Or, that our universe is a divine experiment gone disastrously awry. Why would an eternal/infinite/omnipotent Being have unruly pockets of space-time scrambling around in He/r bosom? Why would an absolute Entity allow little bubbles of evolving matter to grow inside He/r womb? How could Omniscience/Omnipotence have statistical "gaps", unless they were designed to provide opportunities for creativity?

During my fleeting time here in sub specie aeternitatis, I could try to speculate about timelessness and thinglessness. But I can't imagine such non-sense, except by means of analogies & metaphors drawn from personal experience, and the imaginings of other matter-bound speculators. Perhaps, , as an authority on Spinozism, can provide a definitive answer to your question.

Speaking of speculation, Einstein's Relativity gives us one way to construct analogies of the Whole vs Part perspectives. My sensation of autonomous & independent action in space-time might appear to be static & dependent to Enfernal (infinite/eternal) Being. :nerd:

Still my question is: how can we have some degree of autonomy if we are not separate from the Whole? — boundless

From the perspective of the Whole, the parts may or may not have any freedom, depending on the rigidity of rules that bind the parts. But from the perspective of the parts, our degree of freedom is relative to the other parts. Since I am unable to speak for the Whole, I can only judge based on the current state and history of human actions. As to "how", I must assume that the binding chains of natural Cause & Effect have some "gaps" or "loopholes" that can be exploited by Autonomous Agents. Otherwise, we would all be locked-in rocks.

In his book Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett concluded that some degree of Free Will*1 is compatible with Natural Law. He refers to certain "abilities" of homo sapiens that allow us to make choices that are not dictated by physical laws. Among those abilities are Logic and Language. Regarding the rigidity of natural law, I'll just mention that Thermodynamics is based on statistical averages not specific instances*2, and Quantum physics is also statistical, not mechanical. So some slack (statistical loopholes) in the chain of Cause & Effect seems to be allowed.

In Biology, a cell, which is a part of an organism, can have some degree of autonomy*3, if it creates its own constraints : such as a cell wall. Humans create their own "constraints" in the form of Cultural Laws that do not contradict Natural Laws. :smile:


*1. Free Will :
Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves

*2a. Limitation of statistics are :
Statistics is not concerned with individual observation.
Statistics do not analyse qualitative phenomenon.
Statistical generalisation are true only on average.
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/what-are-thelimitation-of-statistics/
*2b.The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law of large numbers.
https://www.compadre.org/nexusph/course/The_2nd_Law_of_Thermodynamics_--_A_Probabilistic_Law

*3. Autonomous :
An organism is autonomous because it creates the set of constraints responsible for its own constitutive activities that maintain its existence.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-021-09829-8

PS___ Pay no attention to dogmatic Spinozist . He doesn't make philosophical arguments, just haughty assertions and Trump-like political attacks. :joke:

↪Gnomon
In other words, are you saying that God/Whole determines all the possibilities but the actualities are determined or co-determined by the rational agents?
And maybe also by other phenomena?
In other words, God 'fixes' all the possible histories but the actual one is co-determined?
I'm not sure how this doesn't lead to a theistic or theistic-like perspective (i.e. that God creates and sustaines but at the same time the creatures maintain an identity that is distinct from the Creator), but I'll wait your answers before delving into this. — boundless

That's not what I'm saying. I assume that all actualities/realities can be traced back to the beginning of space-time. Beyond which we can only conjecture. And the Cause of that sudden appearance of limited spatial volume and temporal change from whatever came before that beginning (Enfernity??) is what we humans typically call "G*D" or "Multiverse".

During the expansion of space-time most emergent Actualities result from natural energy exchanges. But, since the recent advent of homo sapiens, some novelties in the world have been caused by human choices. That's what we call Culture as contrasted with Nature. Therefore, you could say that Cultural Evolution has been "co-determined" by rational agents. But I would not say that all actualities, or all phenomena, or all "actual histories" are determined by the "demi-gods" of the world.

I don't view that co-creator scenario as Theistic, but it is Deistic. It's specifically PanEnDeistic*1. And the causal agency in the world is what I call EnFormAction : causal energy + formal definition + actualization. The "hidden" source of that creative power is unknowable, except by inference from circumstantial evidence. So, any characteristics of the postulated Enformer are knowable only by philosophical speculation and rational deduction*2. Would Spinoza disagree? :smile:


*1. God Models :
Theistic : Direct revelation of divine will to humans.
Deistic : Indirect revelation of divine source via empirical observation of the creation. The Deity is assumed to have created an autonomous world that can run itself without divine intervention.
PanEnDeistic : First Cause is known by reason, not by revelation. Space-Time Reality exists within the scope of Enfernity (Infinity + Eternity). The material world and its inhabitants are participants in divine essence, but are not identical with the divine. We living thinking beings are distinguishable parts of the Whole Being, and not identical to the whole. For more information, Google "Mereology".

*2. Reason :
According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, reason is the power of synthesizing into unity, by means of comprehensive principles, the concepts that are provided by the intellect.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/reason
Note --- The necessary existence of a First Cause is a prime example of "synthesizing into unity" from observation of its knowable parts.

The problem IMO is that you seem to want it both ways. On the one hand, the Whole, i.e.God in your view, is ultimately changeless. On the other hand, you seem to think that change is ultimately real for us and that we are free.
But my question is: how can our perception of change be veridical if the Whole (of which we are mere aspects or maybe 'parts') is changeless? how can we have free will, i.e. a degree of autonomy, if we are mere aspects/modes/parts of God, who is changeless? — boundless

Yes. I think we can have it both ways. But no, unlike Spinoza, I don't think G*D/Whole/Enfernity/Logos is changeless. A static do-nothing deity could not be creative, and our evolving world would not be compatible with an inert cosmos-creator. I don't have any empirical knowledge of anything outside of our space-time world. So anything I might say about Enfernity (eternity-infinity) is pure speculation. But, I would interpret Enfernity as unlimited & boundless, hence free to change in all possible ways. For all I know, a boundless Supreme Being might have created an infinite number of universes, with all possible modes of existence. But I don't waste my time trying to make sense of such literal non-sense.

Instead, I prefer to imagine the First Cause of our universe as an unlimited Pool of Potential, within which anything is Possible, but only certain things are Actual. And the process of Actualization is what we call Creation or Evolution. So, in the space-time world we actually know something about, homo sapiens seems to be the current highest-ranking mode of existence. But evolution is still on-going, so who-knows what kind of creature might, in the future, replace humanity at the top of the food chain (AI ; aliens)? At this point in time though, earthbound humans seem to have a much higher degree of freedom to choose from the menu of options the world has to offer. For example, brainy dolphins eat only fish, while we omnivores eat veggies, fish, beef and chicken.

That's not the FreeWill of an all-powerful deity, but it's enough to allow our species to be the dominant force in the real actual world. As the most invasive species, we even make our own night light to show aliens or gods where we live. In the 21st century, the whole Earth is our habitat, including the moon, and maybe Mars. So, we are not "mere modes of God", but the only "aspects" of God that rule the Real world with our god-like magical technology. :smile:

Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. ---Gnomon

But note that as I said, something can 'feel' very real but at the same time can be illusory. — boundless

Is there a downside to accepting that "feeling" of change in the objective world and the practical effects of willful behavior? I feel older and wiser than I did at 18. Am I just naive, or deceiving myself that I can be an agent of change in the world? When I imagine that I'm driving my car to the grocery store, was that destination destined by God or Fate 14b years before I was born? If my free agency is a mirage, will I go hungry waiting for the world to bend to my will? :snicker:

PS___ My personal experience of change is not "dreamlike", but realistic. By contrast, my dreams are dreamlike and unrealistic.

Henri Bergson on Evolution :
Bergson begins with the entity we know best : the Self. “The existence of which we are most assured and which we know best is unquestionably our own”. Then he discusses Evolution : “ Change is far more radical than we are at first inclined to suppose. For I speak of each of my states as if it formed a block and were a separate whole”. Yet, “The truth is that we change without ceasing, and that the state itself is nothing but change ”.
Creative Evolution from a post I'm currently working on

Well, that's not Spinozism anymore IMO, lol. But of course, you still have a right to call your philosophy a modification of Spinoza's (there are after all analogies) or even say that it is 'Spinozist'. — boundless

I don't make any claim to be a "Spinozist". That would be absurd, since I have never read any of his work first hand, and I don't regard him as my Guru. I merely identified with his break from traditional religion without rejecting the logical necessity of a non-empirical preternatural First Cause of some kind. Since my "critic" did claim to be a Spinozist, I just noted that my personal worldview seemed to be generally compatible with Spinoza's, yet making allowance for advances in historical and scientific understanding since he wrote his "radical enlightenment" manifesto. :smile:

Well, the problem of 'omniscence' is, indeed, a difficult one. If God (whatever S/He or It is) already knows everything, how we can avoid an 'block time' and also the conclusion that free will is a mere illusion? It's indeed a quite difficult question. — boundless

I don't waste much time trying to imagine what Omniscience would be like. Since I have no direct or scriptural "revelation" to go by, I can only guess that Block Time might be something like omniscience.

Regarding Free Will, I can only agree with Einstein's comment on past-present-future Time --- that it's a "stubbornly persistent illusion" --- which 99% of humans accept as a pragmatic assumption. :joke:

Einstein maintained that the distinction between past, present and the future is an illusion, albeit a persistent one, but nevertheless considered the 'now' as the main problem of physics. If the passage of time is illusory, why we do have such a 'persistent illusion'? Our immediate experience is a strong argument against the block time, after all. — boundless

Since, unlike Einstein, I am incapable of imagining omniscience, I would say that an ever-changing world is not an illusion but an empirical Fact of human understanding. To deny real world Change might be a sign of dementia, or of extreme Idealism. Why do we persist in such an illusion? Because it makes sense to our senses. Only philosophers waste time trying to imagine non-sense. :cool:

So, you seem to agree that free will is an illusion, after all. And also the cosmic evolution is merely pespectival and ultimately illusory. If so, your philosophy is closer to Spinoza's than I thought before.
I thought that you asserted that the cosmic evolution is 'real', not illusory. Apparently, I misinterpreted. — boundless

Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. Relative to mundane human understanding it's an undeniable verity. Since I have almost 8 decades of personal experience, I can't deceive myself that Aging & Death are figments of imagination. From my imaginary personal perspective, Death looks like a skeleton in a black hoodie holding a mean-looking scythe. :wink:

↪Gnomon
The juxtaposition of the multiverse versus the limited universe of the ancient Near East is amusing. — schopenhauer1

It may be amusing to you because you have seen images of Earth from above the Firmament, and no God in the picture. That's because God was standing behind the camera. :joke:

Ok, I think that your view shares some similarities with Spinoza's but isn't compatible with it. After all, there is no 'real' cosmic evolution in Spinoza's view. Change is an illusory appearance that we percieve because of our limited perspective. In the highest way of seeing the world, there is no change. — boundless

Yes. I'm aware that Spinoza's 17th century worldview predated both 19th century Darwinian Evolution, and 20th century Big Bang theory. So I have updated my own worldview to include those challenges to the standstill world of Spinoza-God. Perhaps God's omniscient view of the world is like Einstein's Block Time*1, in which all possibilities exist concurrently, yet unchanging. But humans, observing only from inside the world system (limited perspective), can only see one snapshot at a time, then merge those stills into an ever-changing illusory movie. For all practical purposes, I assume the "persistent" illusion of ever-changing Time is true. But for philosophical interests, I can imagine a god's-eye-view of the Cosmos, as illustrated in the image below*2 {note --- Enfernity is my mashup of Eternity and Infinity}. Of course, these imaginary metaphors should not be taken literally. :smile:

PS___ The small gray circles represent hypothetical multiverses that only an infinite-eternal God would have "time" to create. Again, not to be taken literally.


*1. Block Time or Eternalism :
In the philosophy of space and time, eternalism is an approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time. . . . .
It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

I see your point here. But Spinoza would deny any kind of autonomy for human beings. He would say that if we have free will, we would have some kind of independence from God and, therefore, we would be individual substances — boundless

Again, this is a matter of perspective. From God's perch outside the physical universe, all things, including humans, are totally dependent on the Source, the Potential, the Omnipotent. But, from a human perspective inside our little world bubble, rational creatures have developed some independence from Absolute Determinism. We "little gods" are indeed dependent relative to God/Omniverse, but independent relative to our local environment, as indicated in image *3. That doesn't make us Autonomous substances, but Relative instances. We are Free only relative to other creatures. :wink:

*2. GOD EXISTS IN ENFERNITY

*3. GOD OUTSIDE SPACE-TIME

Anyway, as I said, I was presenting Spinoza's thought (as I understood it). I was actually a Spinozist in 2011-2013, but now my views are quite different. For instance I am neither convinced by his metaphysics (especially I quite disagree with his complete denial of any kind of free will) nor by his convinction that philosophy is 'liberating'. I do find his views fascinating and they did left a strong impression in me. — boundless

That is of interest to me. Especially because, on this forum, the harshest critic of my personal worldview, Enformationism, also claims to be a Spinozist. I wouldn't call myself a Spinozist, since I only know of his ideas via second hand accounts. I told him (the critic) that my philosophical world model is, like Spinoza's, more akin to Science than Religion, but it also assumes that cosmic Evolution is not aimless & accidental, but governed & directed by logical/mathematical internally-coded laws similar to a computer program.

I know nothing of the implicit lawmaker/mathematician/programmer --- or He/r telos --- but I like Plato's notion of Logos as a label for the ordering principle of the universe. Apparently, even such a non-theological notion as Logos or First Cause or Prime Mover is too close to his despised Catholic dogma for his comfort. And any intimation of transcendence (i.e. pre-big-bang) offends his Immanentist beliefs.

Since at least one species of gradually evolved creatures has developed a somewhat objective & rational understanding of world events, I conclude that A> the ability to stand outside our emotion-driven animal nature, and B> the power to generate unique personal ideas (abstract representations, images, models, goals) of our own, allows us to become local centers of Will within the universal "Willpower" (motive force) of the universal thermodynamic system, otherwise dominated by destructive Entropy. Which, in effect, makes us humans the "little gods" of the world. Hence, we have begun to create sub-human creatures of our own, such as complex machines and artificial intelligence, that execute the will of their programmers.

How do you think Spinoza would judge such a 21st century update of his own 17th century worldview? :smile:

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

Enformy :
In the Enformationism thesis, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. Physicists inappropriately labeled that positive force as "Negentropy".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

↪Gnomon
I find some amusement in the length this thread has reached, given what seems so obvious to me, that life is definitely, obviously, overwhelmingly NOT fair and just. Maybe we who are here to comment are the lucky beneficiaries of life's unfairness and injustice? — BC

I too, am surprised at the mississippi river length, and off-topic delta, that the OP's yes or no question has prompted. I suppose its a sign that Fairness & Justice are touchy topics for philosophically and religiously inclined posters. One post above came close to summarizing the contentious issue behind an ancient philosophical conundrum. :smile:

Who's responsible for fairness & justice, us or god?
"I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.
That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible." — Banno

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon
I don't think so. But he would not say that a 'sage' is like someone 'driven by innate animal urges', for obvious reasons. — boundless

I was not familiar with Spinoza's concept of a "Sage". Apparently it's a human who "participates" in the divine nature. Is that something like the "wisdom" that philosophers seek? Does such wisdom allow a Sage to find ways to work around fatalistic Determinism, in order to exercise Free Will? Does that semi-divine willpower make us the "little gods" of this world, who break free from physical limits and animal urges? :chin:

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts — Gnomon
Is this Whole eternal and not dependent from its parts? — boundless

Yes. The hypothetical all-encompassing source of all possibilities is assumed to be transcendent and Holistic : more than the sum of its parts. This is in contrast to the immanent deity of reductive PanTheism. Moreover, the notion of PanEnDeism, although metaphorical, is intended to be amenable to rational science & philosophy, although its transcendence makes it inaccessible to empirical evidence. :halo:

Also, IMO Spinoza's 'solution' to the problem of suffering is to see everything sub specie aeternitatis and thus transcend every individual perspective. In the distorted individual perspective the world might appear 'unfair' but when the world is seen sub specie aeternitatis, such a judgment is transcended. — boundless

So, from God's timeless perspective, human suffering is inconsequential? The Christian "solution" to suffering is to give some humans a remedial do-over (second life) in a timeless heavenly Paradise. For non-Christians though, maybe Stoic acceptance is the best we can hope for? :cool:

Causa sui' means uncaused and yes it is deemed the ultimate 'cause' of all material things like everything else, as said in other posts. — boundless

I may have to add Causa Sui to my lexicon of First Causes and Prime Movers. Some Forum posters don't believe in ultimate causes or principles ; preferring to think in terms of observable serial Effects rather than a hypothetical (imaginary) unique self-existent Ultimate Cause. I guess that's the main distinction between the worldviews of practical Science and theoretical Philosophy. :nerd:

I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.
That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible. — Banno

That may be the implication raised in the article that motivated me to start this thread. But I didn't express it so succinctly. Some Theists seem to take the attitude : "let go and let God". Ironically, a few respondents seem to have assumed that's what I was trying to say. If so, what would be the point of philosophy? :smile:

BTW, Spinoza also, if I recall correctly, believed that absolutely everything was inevitable. This is a form of 'determinism' which is stronger than Laplace: Laplace's determinism doesn't fix the initial conditions. In Spinoza's way it is even impossible to think that things could have been different, even in principle. — boundless

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin:

Yes, but note that for Spinoza and for many of the 'holists' the 'Whole' is, in fact, ontologically independent and its existence does not depend on its 'parts'. This is why IMO a fully consistent pantheism might necessarily lead to some kind of acosmism, where the 'parts' are merely illusions. — boundless

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts. Unlike Theism, this view does not presume that the parts have any inkling of the mind of God. And it does not imagine that humans are the darlings of the deity. So, any natural injustice or unfairness is not personally directed, but merely the nonpartisan workings of a material physical world, in which some creatures live on the life of other creatures. And some creatures develop moral qualms about killing other living things.

PED does not necessarily "divest itself" of a thinking god --- I suppose that's a Christian put-down --- but merely denies that the Whole reveals its thoughts, if any, to the parts. So the philosophical "parts" can only speculate about knowing the "Mind of God", as Steven Hawking put it. And the Prophets just make-up ideas & opinions that they think God could/should have regarding his Chosen People. As I understand it, PED does not go so far as to assume that finite dependent creatures are mere powerless cogs in the cosmic machine. If you feel & act as-if you are morally free, then you have some degree of FreeWill. But that's a whole n'other thread. :nerd:

Yes. But note that he viewed his God as a refinement of the 'God' of the philosophers and theologians of his time. Certainly not a 'material source' of everything. — boundless

The philosophers of his time were just beginning to depart from the party line of Catholic theologians. So Spinoza's deistic deity must have seemed radical to many fellow philosophers. Was his causa sui not deemed to be the First Cause of all material things? :smile:



Panendeism vs Panentheism :
Panentheism holds that God exerts a controlling effect on the universe; this opposes panendeism, which denies that God is involved…Panendeism divests itself from an explicitly thinking God. Panendeism specifically holds that there is an aspect of reality, different from physical reality, extending into a non-thinking formless and changeless, awareness realm.
https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Panendeism

Acosmism, in philosophy, the view that God is the sole and ultimate reality and that finite objects and events have no independent existence. Acosmism has been equated with pantheism, the belief that everything is God.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/acosmism

I do see Wayfarer as prosecuting a moral crusade, so yeah, I did introduce the term. It was you that suggested that the whole of philosophy has been a moral crusade and I asked you for examples and to explain why you see the chosen example(s) as constituting a moral crusade. — Janus

No. The term "moral crusade" sounds like a militant Christian concept, not a peaceful Philosophical quest for an ethical society. The bloody medieval crusades were "prosecuted" by physically and legalistically attacking unbelievers, as directed by the crusader's "king" in heaven : "in hoc signo vinces". I doubt that would think in such terms ; I certainly don't. And I don't know of any comparable philosophical "crusades", involving sword-wielding metaphysicians. The idea sounds absurd.

However, Way does have an erudite personal worldview, that is much less ambiguous than many that are "prosecuted" on this forum. And he defends that philosophical position astutely, without attacking with swords drawn. But yes, the work of Philosophy is inherently ambiguous, due not to any personal uncertainty, but to the difficulty of postulating metaphysical concepts in a materialistic language. :grin:

For as I have noted, Spinoza there defines eternity as existence conceived “to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing” (E1d8), and he adds the explication that eternal existence “cannot be explained by duration or time, even if the duration is conceived to be without beginning or end.” — Gnomon
Yes! Spinoza's eternity is timelessness, not infinite duration. — boundless

Yes, but : us space-time creatures can only imagine essential timelessness, by analogy with the contingent & ever-changing world of matter & energy. So, the Necessary Being is a metaphor, logically defined into existence as the exception to the natural rule of Change & Contingent Existence : here today and gone tommorrow. My own analogy is with 1 & 0 (all or nothing) in computer code. which serve as brackets or bookends (beginning & end), yet are not countable numbers themselves, but conceptual placeholders. The static eternal "brackets" stand in contrast to the fleeting events of sensory reports.

So God is a concept to define temporal existence, not a mundane material creature like ourselves. Hence, Materialists deny such Ideal imaginary existence as literally Unreal, Immaterial, and Irrelevant to flesh & blood creatures. Consequently, the only justification for belief in an invisible nothingness is to serve as a logical Background against which to "see" the figures & forms of reality. Reductive scientists, like Laplace, have no need for such superfluous hypothetical notions. But Holistic philosophers find such concepts necessary for their quest to probe the limits of reality : the General, the Principle, the Whole, of which all real things are mere specks of dust.

Do you think Spinoza would agree with the label : "god of the philosophers", as contrasted with the God of theologians, and the godless-but-fecund Material World of scientists? :chin:

Anyway, IMO Spinoza's philosophy is unaffected by the beginning of our universe. In fact, maybe Spinoza would said that our 'universe' is merely a mode and therefore it can have a beginning. — boundless

I agree that Spinoza's notion of "Eternity" is not to be interpreted in a space-time sense. But modern interpreters might conclude that a transcendent or supramundane God (beyond space-time) could only be known/imagined via speculation or Faith : like the infinite-eternal Multiverse hypothesis. :smile:

What does Spinoza mean by eternity?
For as I have noted, Spinoza there defines eternity as existence conceived “to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing” (E1d8), and he adds the explication that eternal existence “cannot be explained by duration or time, even if the duration is conceived to be without beginning or end.”
https://academic.oup.com/book/2287/chapter-abstract/142414886?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The modes are not parts of the substance! If they were, the Substance would not be an absolute. As 180 Proof correctly said 'our physical universe' itself is merely a mode of the substance. Modes are just 'aspects' of the natura naturata which from our 'point of view' seem discrete objects or 'parts'.
Regarding the 'actualization'... maybe the whole 'natura naturata' can be thought to be an actualization of 'natura naturans'. There is absolutely nothing outside God in his metaphysics. So IMO saying that God is a 'Potential' misses this. — boundless

As I mentioned before, I'm not an erudite Spinoza scholar --- unlike , who haughtily agreed with my deplorable ignorance. But, since my amateur philosophical perspective is similar in some ways to Spinoza's, I'm still trying to learn where his 17th century model and my 21st century worldview differ.

Regarding my use of the term "Potential", it's a generalization & abstraction of the concept of causal Power ; not necessarily a god. Yet, if Spinoza's all-encompassing "God" has creative power*1 , then it is also the boundless Pool-of-Potential from which all space-time material things and immaterial statistical Modes are manifested. That doesn't mean the Eternal Substance is diminished in any way by the distinction between temporary & local Modes (attributes) and eternal & infinite Essence. The particular Modes are contained within the holistic Substance, not separate things. Hence, my notion of Creative Holism. Which is generally compatible with Bergson's Creative Evolution*2. If Spinoza's Nature is neither creative nor intentional, I don't understand why he would call it a "god".

But, is Evolution creative? I suppose that depends on your definition of "creativity". Some say it's only an aimless Algorithm ; but cosmic history certainly seems to reveal the emergence of features like Life & Mind that are not explainable by a simple explosion & expansion of space-time. Evolution from simple to complex goes against Entropy, and seems more like a purposeful program. Whether Natura is intentional or not is also debatable, and a topic for a different thread. But, according to the link below*3, Spinoza's Deus is more like a blind erratic force of Nature than a traditional creative God. Which may be why likes that literally absurd lawless worldview. But my worldview attempts to explain the apparent --- dare I say "obvious"? --- creativity of nature in philosophical terms that go back to Plato. So, it seems that my Panendeistic Nature God*4 explains the progressive "arrow of time", while Spinoza's might better define the orderless background of Chaos from which Plato's orderly Cosmos, including Life & Mind, emerges. Am I missing something here?

Back to the holistic nature of Spinoza's Natura, I tend to think of the Modes, not as parts of a multi-part assembly, but as various expressions of boundless Power/Potential. In that dynamic definition, a changeable mode is like a temporary State*5 of an eternal Substance. By analogy with the hypothetical universal Quantum energy Field, any Particle is merely a local disturbance or manifestation or mode or actualization of the general creative causal power of the continuous energetic system. Is Spinoza's "God" an eternal-infinite-universal energy field from which all Modes emerge? :nerd:


*1.Mode vs Substance :
'That which is in itself,' i.e. that, the reality of which is self-dependent, is what Spinoza calls 'Substance': 'that, which is in something else,' i.e., that whose reality is dependent, is called a 'mode,' or state of substance.
https://academic.oup.com/book/32374/chapter-abstract/268649395?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- Does "God" divide Modes from Substance, or do the modes-we-call-human create such distinctions? If the latter, whence the human ability to create that-which-is-not-given?

*2. Bergson's Creative Evolution :
The theory presented an evolution in which a free emergence of the individual intelligence could be recognized. It was thus wholly distinct from previous deterministic hypotheses that were either mechanistic or teleological and represented evolution as conditioned either by existing forces or by future aims.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/creative-evolution-philosophy

*3. Spinoza's God : accidental or intentional?
This builds on a point he made earlier when he said that if God were to act with a purpose he would be making decisions based on something outside himself, like a person setting up a target and aiming at it. For Spinoza this is absurd; there is nothing outside of God and nothing that God could lack.
https://matthewzgindin.medium.com/spinoza-in-plain-english-pt-10b-god-acts-without-purpose-book-1-appendix-eda9d48cba67
Note --- Is a human's Purpose something outside himself, or an expression of his human nature, and his creative ability? If comprehensive Natura is able to change, the novelty would have to be internal : as a man changes his mind.

*4. God as eternal Potential, Nature as space-time Actual :
Is Space-Time Nature a mode of eternal Potential ; perhaps born about 14 billion years ago, for no apparent reason? "Panendeism" : look it up.

*5. States are not things or objects, but snapshots of continuous processes. Hence, mental or subjective. Only an analytical mind can imagine an ongoing physical process as-if momentarily halted. That talent was codified in the mathematical concepts of Calculus and Differentials, as applied to dynamic systems and non-linear geometric curves. The fundamental idea of calculus is to study change by studying instantaneous bits of change, that only exist in imagination.

Hoffman makes the same mistake as Kant, supposing that there is a really, truly world out there that is different to and inaccessible from the world we live in.
But the world is the world we live in. — Banno

That sounds like a statement of metaphysical Materialistic belief*1 . But Kant was a philosopher. He was not talking about the world we "live in" (objective reality), but about the world we "think in" (subjective ideality). Do you think the world we live & breathe in is the same as the world we imagine? If the only "world" was the physical environment, why do we amateur philosophers so often argue about what is real and what is illusion? If we all saw the same world-model, why do we disagree on its properties and qualities? Was Einstein also mistaken in his frame-of-reference theory of Relativity?

Physical Science studies its macro-scale properties, and over centuries has gradually come to a stable understanding of its material structure. But Quantum Science has found that, on the fundamental scale, those classical properties are not so stable and certain. For example, the table you see before you as a solid object, is now defined by quantum science as mostly empty space with a few bits of condensed energy. So which "reality" does Philosophy argue about? Kant's hypothetical ding an sich was not postulated as a "real" physical object, but as an ideal metaphysical concept. Hoffman's theory is not about sensable objective reality, but about our subjective conception of that reality.

Which world do you live in? The scientific world of sight & touch, or the philosophical world of imaginary worldviews? This forum, as indicated by its name, is for the latter. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical Materialism :
The metaphysics of materialism is a belief system held in large swathes of academia in the same manner, and often for the same reasons, that religious beliefs are held in fundamentalist organizations, argues Dr. Quinn, with 30 years of academic experience to substantiate her views.
“We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Anais Nin (1961)
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/materialism-in-academia-is-a-fundamentalist-belief-system/reading/
Note : Werner Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

Some interpreters seem to think that Spinoza was a modern 'scientific pantheism' who identified 'God' with our physical world. I am not saying that they cannot be defended somehow, but IMO they are implausible because Spinoza did not see himself as an 'innovator' and used in a different ways the concepts of 'classical philosophy' (derived mainly from Plato and Arisotle). — boundless

Obviously, Spinoza's identification of God with Nature, sounds like both Pantheism and Immanentism. But, I interpret his deus sive natura as more like Plato's Logos : an essential principle, not a material thing ; an amorphous Ideal, not a space-time Object. That essence could be interpreted as the immaterial Whole of which all material things are parts ; or the unbounded Aristotelian Potential of which all physical objects are Actualizations.

As a creative causal Essence, though, this Logos or Potential might not create intentionally*1, but more like accidental Evolution. However, even Darwinian evolution has created material things (us) with philosophical minds. Moreover, as a scientific concept, Evolution is guided by "natural laws" and powered by physical Energy. Which may be merely two of God's "infinite attributes", but are of prime importance to creatures who seek to understand how & why this creative process works. Those directional Laws & Causes --- understandable to humans only metaphorically*2 --- are necessarily limitations on Infinity and Eternity. :smile:


*1. In fact, Spinoza's God is an entirely impersonal power, and this means that he cannot respond to human beings' requests, needs and demands. Such a God neither rewards nor punishes – and this insight rids religious belief of fear and moralism. Second, God does not act according to reasons or purposes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/21/spinoza-ethics-god-human-traits

*2. Natural Forces & Laws are not material things, but general principles. Metaphorically, like a quantum particle that exists only as undefined non-local statistical Potential until "collapsed" into finite local reality by an intentional probing observation. We humans only know those non-things by inference from their effects, not by direct knowledge of their essence or substance.

Note: how strong is his "case" such that evolution is refuted. That is, does evolution lead to an absurd conclusion? — Gregory

You may have taken his metaphorical language too literally. Hoffman makes no attempt to "refute" Reality or Evolution. Instead, he takes Darwinian Evolution for granted, as the mechanism that produced human observers, such as scientists & philosophers, and assumes that a real world is out there.

Then, he merely notes that our knowledge of that vast & complex world is inherently, and necessarily, incomplete. Also, our personal worldview is an interpretation, not an observation. Moreover, as the link below implies, we create our own Ideal version of Reality by selectively omitting most of the available information. His metaphor portrays your perspective on the world as something like an icon on your computer or phone screen : it serves as an abstract symbol of the underlying world, and "hides" irrelevant details that are not necessary for your livelihood.

Whether his conclusion is "absurd" or not, largely depends on the worldview that you bring to the book. For a Christian or Muslim, the creator of the human mind is God, not an accidental fluke of random evolution. So, if you don't accept the concept of godless evolution, Hoffman's "conclusion" won't make sense. Unless perhaps, God wanted to spare you from certain harsh realities that are beyond your comprehension. :smile:

PS___ The "Reality" he refers to is your personal partial worldview : subjective vs objective reality.


What is the case against reality summary?
The Case against reality can be summed up succinctly. We are participants in the creation of reality, we operate using a species specific user interface which selects information that's out there and condenses it into information that guides our action.
https://wisewords.blog/book-summaries/case-against-reality-book-summary/

As I interpret Spinoza, there are two ways of 'seeing' the 'world'. First, there is the usual perspective, 'sub specie temporis' which does not contemplate 'Reality' as a whole. This perspective, for Spinoza, has the unfortunate 'side effect' that it suggests that the 'modes' are actually distinct entities, substances.

However, when the world is seen rigthly, Reality is seen as an'undivided Whole', the only One Substance, God, in a way that is actually reminiscent of Parmenides IMO or indian advaita Vedanta. He says that the human mind is eternal, but only when seen as a mode, not a substance. It's a bit like saying that a particular ocean wave belongs to the whole history of the ocean, which is seen as a single undivided entity. — boundless

I'm not very familiar with Parmenides or Advaita, so my own terminology would characterize the "two ways of seeing the world" as Holistic (Philosophy ; Idealism ; Holism ) or Particular (Science ; Physicalism ; Materialism). So, as an amateur philosopher, I try to view the world "as a whole". And IMHO the best summation of that worldview is the 1926 book by Biologist Jan Smuts : Holism and Evolution. It's intended to be a science book, but since it focuses on Wholes instead of Modes, it is basically a philosophy book. Are you familiar with that book, or the concept of Holism?

In my previous post, I asked you "I'm not a Spinoza expert, but regarding unbounded space-time, he seemed to assume that the material world, and his Nature God, was Eternal & Infinite*1. So how would he deal with modern Cosmology, which says that the universe had a sudden & inexplicable beginning of Space-Time-Matter-Energy? Where or when was boundless Natura Naturans before the Bang?" Do you have an opinion about Spinoza's opinion on that vexing modern question?

The typical Materialist/Physicalist answer has been some version of an infinite space-time Multiverse, with many re-starts or re-births : Godlike, except mindless. How else can we reconcile the circumstantial evidence for a particular space-time beginning, with the notion of Reality as an undivided and timeless whole? Personally, I think the key distinction is, as you noted, between single Substance or boundless Being or unmanifest Potential, and its many Modes or Instances or Things. But that sounds too close to traditional god-concepts for some of us. :smile:

PS___ For all practical purposes, I am in a space-time box. But, for philosophical purposes, I try to think outside the box.

I can see why you can call Spinoza an 'immanentist'. But at the same time it is a peculiar form of immanentism where the 'true reality' has an element of transcendence. Not in the sense that 'Natura Naturans' is something 'separate' from the modes but 'sub specie aeternitatis' only God is real (at this level the modes in some sense 'disappear', are transcended). — boundless

Understandably, the Catholic Church labeled Immanentism as a heresy. Which may add to its appeal for anti-catholic Immanentists. What was the "element of transcendence" in his reality : Eternity/Infinity? How can you transcend Infinity? How are modes-of-being transcended?

I'm not a Spinoza expert, but regarding unbounded space-time, he seemed to assume that the material world, and his Nature God, was Eternal & Infinite*1. So how would he deal with modern Cosmology, which says that the universe had a sudden & inexplicable beginning of Space-Time-Matter-Energy? Where or when was boundless Natura Naturans before the Bang?*2 :smile:


*1. Spinoza defined God as "a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence", and since "no cause or reason" can prevent such a being from existing, it must exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

*2. Eternity is a property that substance and modes have in common. Spinoza posits in E5p23 that “the human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which is eternal.” Thus, men have both an indefinite existence or duration, and an eternal one.
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28070/chapter-abstract/212085978?redirectedFrom=fulltext

they are composed of two elements — Gnomon
You can use as many "elements" as you want! — Apustimelogist

I was referring to electronic computer processing of information. In principle the registers could use any voltage, but in practice the voltage is ideally all or nothing --- 1 or 0, 100% or Zero, On or Off, 3.3V or 0V --- to minimize errors in communication. In any case, its the logical relationship between elements (1:0 or 1/0) that is interpreted as information. You could say that the rounded-off 1s and 0s are signs, with lots of space in between, that are not likely to be confused with each other, unlike 1.032 and 1.023.

The "elements" of Shannon information are typically limited to 1s & 0s. That's why it's called Binary Code. In Nature, including the human brain, information processing may not be that precise, hence non-binary --- just like some Hollywood celebrities. :grin:

Bits don't really work well as "fundamental building blocks," because they have to be defined in terms of some sort of relation, some potential for measurement to vary. IT does seem to work quite well with a process metaphysics though, e.g. pancomputationalism. But what about with semiotics? I have had a tough time figuring out this one. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Shannon's "bits" were basic to his theory, but can't be absolutely fundamental, because they are composed of two elements (1 & 0) plus the relationship between them. So, I think the metaphysical concept of Relation*1 (relativity) may be more essential, in that it is neither a composite material object nor a member of a mathematical series : the number line, of which 1 & 0 are the end points, the ideal brackets that enclose reality, not real in themselves. The only alternative to a Relation is an Absolute.

I'm not well-versed in academic Semiotics*1, but I don't think any particular sign, or even the general concept of sign, is fundamental, because signs/symbols always point to something else. You might say that Semiotics is also about Relations. And knowledge of relationships is the essence of Information & Reason & Logic : all metaphysical. As the link below*2 reveals, it's hard to even define Relation without referring to multiple non-fundamental entities, or to self-reference. :smile:


*1. Information general, Semiotics specific
Information is a vague and elusive concept, whereas the technological concepts are relatively easy to grasp. Semiotics solves this problem by using the concept of a sign as a starting point for a rigorous treatment for some rather woolly notions surrounding the concept of information.
https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5383733/101.pdf

*2. What is a relation in metaphysics?
Relations are ways in which several entities stand to each other. They usually connect distinct entities but some associate an entity with itself. The adicity of a relation is the number of entities it connects. The direction of a relation is the order in which the elements are related to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_(philosophy)

I said that Wayfarer does not present an unambiguous position. It looks like I misread you to be suggesting philosophy is commonly ambiguous, whereas I now see you were suggesting it has largely been a moral crusade. So, my bad for hasty reading. — Janus

No, the subtly denigrating term "moral crusade" --- implying a holy mission? --- characterization of 's posts, was yours, not mine. I said he was just doing Philosophy. Was Socrates on a "moral crusade" in Athens? If so, then maybe all of us petty philosophers should emulate his mission for reason. :smile:


What is the moral crusade theory?
moral crusade A social movement which campaigns around a symbolic or moral issue such as alcohol or pornography. Classic sociological accounts of moral crusades include Joseph R. Gusfield's study of the Temperance Movement, Symbolic Crusade (1963), and Louis A. Zurcher et al. , Citizens for Decency (1976)
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/moral-crusade

From the TPF Site Guidelines :
Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Scientism and materialism don't seem very popular on this site and I would be hard pressed to recall members here who identify this way. Can you name any?
People who find idealism dead wrong also include Christians, Muslims and other theists who are far from sympathetic to science or to materialism. — Tom Storm

That's not my experience on TPF. Although the few zealots for philosophical materialistic Scientism may just be more vocal and quick to attack any Idealist ideas than those who are less doctrinaire. When I disagree with their 17th century classical physics worldview, I call them out directly. But I won't name them for you. Ironically, they are hard-pressed to come-up with a label for my own unorthodox worldview, for which I created my own label --- and it's not Idealism. Also, I don't think would limit his own worldview to any Idealist doctrine, although he seems to be favorably inclined toward Kastrup's Analytical Idealism.

What Christians would find "dead wrong" about philosophical Idealism-in-general, and Analytical Idealism in particular, is the lack of specific Christian doctrinal elements*1. Also Kastrup's rejection of a literal interpretation of its mythology & symbology would be a deal breaker*2. Besides, Way's personal philosophy seems to be closer to secular Buddhism, which disavowed intervening gods in favor of self-help . My own personal worldview is closer to secular Deism, which for Christians is "not even wrong", because it relies on human Reason, instead of divine Revelation, to conclude the logical necessity for a First Cause of some kind, to avoid an infinite tower of turtles prior to the Big Bang. However, my worldview is completely compatible with Materialism (chemistry) and Physicalism (physics) in a scientific context, apart from Philosophy, the science of ideas (metaphysics). :smile:


*1. Philosophical Idealism and Christian Belief :
At the heart of the idealists’ discussion of God and the absolute, is the difficulty of defending the notion of a personal or relational Judaeo-Christian God with the absolute, which, as the purer Idealist philosophers of the day, Bradley and Bosanquet, pointed out, must be beyond our knowledge and fellowship.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/philosophical-idealism-and-christian-belief/

*2. Kastrup on Religion :
In my book, More Than Allegory, I have stated my views on religion: I think it is a valid and important part of human life that we neglect at our own peril. Religious mythology, although obviously not literally true, is symbolic of something that, while transcending our rational faculties, is integral and critical to being human.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/12/a-suggestion-for-church-reform.html

Christianity vs "false-teaching" Deism :
Deism teaches that all people can know and believe in a Supreme Being—the prime mover of all things—merely through the vehicle of reason. Historically, deists often held to a modified form of Christianity that emptied the faith of any supernatural elements while allowing its moral instruction to remain. Though it is more of a philosophical and religious set of ideals than an organized religion, deism offers an antisupernatural worldview as an alternative to Christian theism. . . . .
Scripture teaches the following:
The Supreme Being: There is only one true and living God, subsisting in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/field-guide-on-false-teaching-deism
Note --- Modern Deism typically makes no assertions about the nature of the hypothetical First Cause.

↪Gnomon
Firstly I haven't said there are no ambiguous claims from philosophers, but I don't believe philosophy in general is rife with them. So that said, how about you give a good example or two of what you take to be an ambiguous claim from a well-known philosopher. — Janus

I'm not the one that raised the question of ambiguity in this thread. So, it should be incumbent upon the raiser to give examples. However, for a starter, the article below gives an analysis and examples of a common bane of philosophical discussions.

You seem to think that 's posts are "rife with them". Admittedly, his somewhat Idealistic worldview seems, not just ambiguous but dead wrong, to those who are committed to a worldview of Materialism and Scientism. That's the ambiguity of opposing perspectives on reality. Is that where you are coming from? :smile:


Ambiguity :
Fun fact: the word ‘ambiguous’, at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is ambiguous: it can mean uncertainty or dubiousness on the one hand and a sign bearing multiple meanings on the other. I mention this merely to disambiguate what this entry is about, which concerns a word or phrase enjoying multiple meanings. In this sense, ambiguity has been the source of much frustration, bemusement, and amusement for philosophers, lexicographers, linguists, cognitive scientists, literary theorists and critics, authors, poets, orators and pretty much every other being who uses language regularly to communicate.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ambiguity/

Philosophy, Linguistics, & Semiology :
Saussure had a major impact on the development of linguistic theory in the first half of the 20th century with his notions becoming incorporated in the central tenets of structural linguistics. His main contributions to structuralism include his notion of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure

...disparagement of "mere speculation"... — Gnomon
Oh, go ahead and speculate. Just don't mistake speculation for fact. — Banno

Thanks for your blessing. I don't see many empirical "facts" presented on this philosophical forum. However, I do see quite a few unfounded assumptions, especially about material reality, that are used as-if factual to validate disparaging remarks. :smile:

I think a philosopher might be open to facing the truth of the nature of our minds, whatever that might be.
It sounds like you are saying that a philosopher is someone with a closed mind on the subject. Is that about right? — wonderer1

Wow! Where did you get that off-the-wall idea from an assertion about the relationship between Information and Logic? What then, is the truth about the true "nature of our minds"? Are you saying that the harsh truth is that the Mind is nothing more than a Brain? Or that Logic is objective and empirical?

Is the ability to discern the invisible logical structure of ideas & events & brains, a sign of a "closed" mind? Or is the ability to see the material constituents of things a sign of an "open brain"? Please clarify your veiled put-down. :smile:

In the Physicalism belief system, Metaphysics (i.e. Philosophy) is meaningless

↪Gnomon
Berkeley had a clear position. According to him the explanation for the persistence of things and the fact we all perceive the same things was that God has them in mind. If you want to participate in discussion and debate that purpose is defeated if you can't or won't declare and argue for a clear and consistent position. I'm not saying that discussion and debate is what philosophy is all about, just that it you want to do that, then have something unambiguous to present.

What Wayfarer does on here seems to me to be more social commentary, a kind of moral crusade, than philosophy. — Janus

When was the last time you saw a philosopher present an idea that was not ambiguous to someone? Empirical observations can be unambiguous when the physical object can be pointed to. But the topics we discuss on this forum, such as Justice, are inherently ambiguous due to the difficulty of transferring an idea in one mind to another mind, by means of language. Linguistic philosophy was proposed as an answer to that very problem. Unfortunately, just as empirical scientists have been frustrated in their search for the material Atom --- can you point to a hypothetical quark or its constituent color or flavor? --- philosophers have been seeking the linguistic or logical Atom for millennia.

Do you really think Berkeley's "clear position" was unambiguous, when it was immediately attacked by Materialists and Deists for its unstated assumption of miraculous interventions? You set a high standard for philosophy to meet. Years ago, when I left my church, a few members to ask "why?". When I gave my crude philosophical answer, one responded that "you are setting a high standard for God to meet". To that, I could only reply that the Monotheistic religions themselves set a rigorous standard for the "true God", so He could be distinguished from idols and false gods.

Materialism also has a clear position : if I can't see it or touch it, it doesn't exist. Which is why physicists persist in their quest for the fundamental Atom of Materialism. Today, mathematical physicists are resigned to the notion of an immaterial mathematical Field as the fundamental ground of reality. Yet, even that amorphous hypothetical entity has, in practice, been divided into four or five sub-fields, and dozens of sub-sub-fields. And you accuse of ambiguity? Hasn't philosophy itself, from the beginning, been a moral/ethical crusade? :nerd:


Linguistic philosophy is the view that many or all philosophical problems can be solved by paying closer attention to language, either by reforming language or by better understanding our everyday language. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, one prominent example being logical atomism. ___Wikipedia

It implies that humans have access to a special mechanism that isn't part of the rest of creation.
To believe in this version of semiotics, I am tasked with believing that God gave humanity access to mechanisms that are not available to mere mortal animals. — Treatid

Would you prefer to believe that Random Evolution "gave" some higher animals the "mechanism" of Reasoning? For philosophers, rationality is not a material machine, but the cognitive function of a complex self-aware neural network that is able to infer (to abstract) a bare-bones logical structure (invisible inter-relationships) in natural systems*1. Other animals may have some similar abilities, but for those of us who don't speak animal languages, about all we can do is think in terms of analogies & metaphors drawn from human experience.

Peirce's 19th century theory of Semiotics is very technical and over my head. Which "version of semiotics" are you referring to : Peirce's abstruse primitive discussion, or the more modern assessment which includes a century of evolving Information Theory*2? I suppose the OP is talking about the latter.

Besides, Peirce's notion of God*3 was probably somewhat cryptic and definitely unorthodox & non-traditional. So, a philosopher might as well substitute "Nature" for "God" as the Giver of a specialized mechanism for abstracting & symbolizing the logical structure of world systems. Would that be easier to "believe", in the context of this thread? Can you imagine Nature as a "living spontaneity"? :smile:


*1. Reason, in philosophy, is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Reason

*2. Information and Semiotics :
Information is a vague and elusive concept, whereas the technological concepts are relatively easy to grasp. Semiotics solves this problem by using the concept of a sign as a starting point for a rigorous treatment for some rather woolly notions surrounding the concept of information.
https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5383733/101.pdf

*3. C.S. Peirce's "Neglected Argument" for God :
"The endless variety in the world has not been created by law. It is not of the nature of uniformity to originate variation, nor of law to beget circumstance. When we gaze upon the multifariousness of nature we are looking straight into the face of a "living spontaneity." . . .
" … there is a reason, an interpretation, a logic in the course of scientific advance, and this indisputably proves to him who has perceptions of rational or significant relations, that man's mind must have been attuned to the truth of things in order to discover what he has discovered. It is the very bedrock of logical truth."
https://www.icr.org/article/cs-peirces-neglected-argument/

↪Wayfarer
At issue is what counts as a measurement. You presume it must involve a conscious being, because you want consciousness to be a substance within the universe. Others have different ideas. Again, mere speculation. Shut up and calculate. — Banno

Sorry to butt in again. But your disparagement of "mere speculation"*1 is a knock on theoretical Science and Philosophy, and not appropriate for a post on The Philosophy Forum. I suppose, like many TPF posters, you view Philosophy as a red-headed step-child of Materialist Science, with aberrant genes inherited from its disreputable parent of institutional Religion.

But probably views General Philosophy*2 (born in ancient times & cultures in opposition to irrational beliefs & gossipy rumors) as the parent of Modern Empirical Science, born in the 17th century in direct opposition to Authoritarian Theology, and focused on Reductive rather than General understanding.

A materialist measurement views the physical yardstick as the judge of accuracy and factuality. But who made & marked the stick with arbitrary increments (meters vs yards)? The etymology of the word "to Measure", comes from Latin "mensura", and the root "mens-"*3 refers back to the Mind that created the the concept of rational regulation of an undifferentiated world*4. So, Way is philosophically correct that, absent a "conscious being", no measurement takes place in the material world. :smile:


*1. Science and Speculation :
"Despite wide recognition that speculation is critical for successful science, philosophers have attended little to it. When they have, speculation has been characterized in narrowly epistemic terms : a hypothesis is speculative due to its lack of evidential support"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-020-00370-w

*2. General philosophy, also known as metaphysics or ontology, explores fundamental questions about the nature of reality, existence, and knowledge.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-distinguish-the-general-and-technical-world-of-philosophy

*3. The Latin word mens expresses the idea of "mind" and is the origin of English words like mental and dementia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens

*4. Measurement problem :
A thought experiment called Schrödinger's cat illustrates the measurement problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

But if we are here to argue sensibly it seems at least reasonable to be called upon to state a clear position. My complaint about Wayfarer is that he cannot or will not do that. — Janus

Are you demanding a "clear position" expressed in Materialistic terminology? I can't speak for , but I suspect that he "cannot or will not do that", because it would completely miss the meaning of his Immaterialist*1 philosophical Position. Any "sensible" Material aspects of his worldview are covered by Science, not Philosophy. :smile:

*1. Immaterialism :
The term 'immaterialism' was introduced by George Berkeley in the third of his Three Dialogues (1713), to designate his own opinion that there was no such thing as material substance, and that bodies were not to be understood in terms of qualities that inhered in an independent, unthinking substratum, but rather as ...
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk › Immaterialism
Note --- This may not be how Way would characterize his views. So I show it here only as an example of an alternative worldview to Materialism, which could not be "clearly" & "sensibly" expressed in Materialist language.

No. It gathered a good bunch of people to drill into self-organising complexity in the broad sense. But then over-generalised that dynamicist viewat the expense of the further thing which biosemiotics is focused on. Dynamics regulated by information. — apokrisis

I don't follow Santa Fe Institute in general, because my interest is primarily in their work on "dynamics regulated by Information" as you put it. Here's two books by authors & editors, some affiliated with SFI, that approach Complexity and Self-Organization from an Information perspective. :smile:


From Matter to Life: Information and Causality :
Recent advances suggest that the concept of information might hold the key to unravelling the mystery of life's nature and origin.
by Sara Imari Walker, et al (Editor) SFI
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics To Metaphysics :
Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance. Why? In this book, eminent scientists, philosophers and theologians chart various aspects of information, from quantum information to biological and digital information, in order to understand how nature works.
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Nature-Reality-Metaphysics-Classics/dp/1107684536
Note --- It has a chapter specifically about Semiology and Biosemiotics

Do you see some spooky implications of my Energy/Information/Mind hypothesis that you would not wish for? — Gnomon
It presents Energy/Information/Mind, three quite distinct concepts, in a vague and inadequate way. — Banno

One of the most common replies on this forum is : "I don't understand what you are saying". Yet sometimes not phrased so politely. I've seen such responses to your own posts. But that's OK. If you will note specific instances of vagueness & inadequacy, I will attempt to clarify them. I have the time, if you have the interest.

Are you not able to grok my abreviated 2 or3 paragraph posts on this forum? Or my 30-page Thesis on the net? Or my multiple Blog posts on specific topics? Admittedly, it's difficult for someone to make sense of an unfamiliar, even unorthodox, concept. My posts typically include links to scientific articles that discuss relevant topics in more focused & precise ways, and in technical scientific terminology, instead of arcane philosophical language. Besides, I have no formal training in abstruse linguistic philosophy, so my writing style may be too mundane for you :smile:

Grok : to understand (something) intuitively or by empathy or profoundly.

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation. . . . . . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

To my eye your account of energy is wishful thinking.
It certainly is not accepted physics. — Banno

My "account" is not Physics, not "wishful thinking", it's speculative Philosophy ; on a Philosophy forum, not a Physics forum. Do you see some spooky implications of my Energy/Information/Mind hypothesis that you would not wish for? Einstein didn't like some of the spooky Quantum physics that resulted from his own not-yet-proven speculations, inferred from abstract mathematics.

Even all-knowing Physics must begin with speculations & conjectures & hypotheses in the absence of hard evidence. Einstein was a Theoretical Physicist with no laboratory experience. Was he doing physics or philosophy? Were his relativity speculations, and E=MC^2, "accepted physics" in 1905? Maybe other, more insightful, "eyes" will be able to see the relationship between Information & Energy & Mind : EnFormAction. :smile:


Is it true that Albert Einstein never did any experiments? :
Albert Einstein was a Theoretical physicist, not an Experimental Physicist. The interactions of matter and energy are studied by all physicists. Experimental physicists test ideas about how these interactions take place at the atomic level and their work has applications to medicine and nuclear technologies.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Albert-Einstein-never-did-any-experiments

Many Scientists Studied Relativity Before Einstein :
There were a bunch of relativity principles before Einstein: Galileo had one, Newton had a slightly different one. Even Aristotle and Descartes had claims that can be taken as similar principles. I find their respective theories of mechanics almost incomprehensible, so am going to ignore them in what follows.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/03/many-scientists-studied-relativity-before-einstein-so-why-does-he-get-the-credit/

Is much of theoretical physics nothing more than speculative assumptions? :
Religion, spirituality, and other “pseudoscientific” theories are constantly seen as backwards and lacking of evidence. But if a lack of evidence before believing in something is considered irrational, why is so much of physics that is based on literally zero testable evidence taken seriously?
There is no direct evidence of a multiverse, certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, string theory, and many other things. Why are so many of these kinds of theories taken seriously?
There have been entire books written about some of these theories with people being fascinated about how intellectual they seemingly sound despite the fact that there is zero experimental evidence for any of these theories.
Should they be given the same treatment as other forms of pseudoscience?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/100676/is-much-of-theoretical-physics-nothing-more-than-speculative-assumptions