The brain-as-receiver model says nothing about any of that, and instead, posits that the arising of consciousness at all is akin to a television receiving signals for any image whatever. Its reasonable, albeit totally fringe and unsupported. — AmadeusD

Another interpretation of the "Cosmos Created Mind" is Kastrup's Analytical Idealism*1. discussed this alternative in his thread*2. I'm not sure I fully understand K's "reasonable" and diligently documented update of ancient Idealism. Also, in order to maintain a philosophical line of reasoning, and to avoid getting into Religion vs Scientism diatribes, I prefer to use less dogmatic & divisive terms than "God". But Kastrup is bolder, and more self-assured than I am.

I wouldn't expect empirical support for a theoretical philosophical conjecture, that postulates a Cosmic Mind of which our little limited logic-parsers are fragments. But what do you think of his Mind as "foundation of Reality" and Idealism as "ultimate Realism" theory? I must admit that it bears some general similarity to my own Holism/Information/Causation hypothesis*3, which follows the chain of evidence back to the precipice of space-time, and merely points a philosophical finger toward the abyss of ignorance beyond. :chin:


*1. Bernardo Kastrup's Cosmic Mind :
he posits that the brain is not a receiver or filter of consciousness, but rather an image or representation of a universal consciousness that has undergone a dissociative process. In this model, physical reality, including the brain, is an external manifestation or "outside image" of internal mental processes
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=In+Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+view%2C+the+brain+is+not+a+receiver+of+consciousness%2C+but+rather+an+image+of+a+mind%27s+dissociative+process.+

*2. In Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism, the "mind of God" refers to a single, undivided, and all-encompassing consciousness that is the foundation of reality. He uses the concept of dissociation, a mental process where a larger mind fragments into smaller, individual minds, to explain how individual consciousnesses like ours arise from this single cosmic mind. This "God's mind" is not impersonal but is, in this view, the ultimate reality, and the world we experience is an externalization of this mind.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012470

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

Well if you paid more attention to the key Planckscale fact that I mentioned - such as how the Big Bang was both the smallest smallness and the hottest hotness ever - then you might start to see that as the beginning of an explication. — apokrisis

"Planckscale" is not a fact, and not actual, but imaginary & Ideal & hypothetical. Since I'm not a physicist, "planck scale facts" do not compute for me. The "explication"*1 below is a series of analogies to things we can experience & measure, in order to explain a mathematical concept that is impossible to experience or measure. Can you get closer to a meaningful real-world explication?

Planck's Scale is not an actual measurement, but a theoretical limit to measurement. It's like saying Zero plus Infinitesimal. Does that mean anything to you? Can you really imagine an imaginary world where the "laws of physics" do not apply? Is the Planck Scale radius --- encompassing infinite potential for Causation (energy) --- empirical Science or theoretical (mathematical) Philosophy?*3 It's not useful for any real-world applications, but only for philosophical conjectures*4.

For all practical purposes, you might just as well say that the near-infinite universe we now experience originated from nothing --- no atoms or quarks --- but near-infinite Energy. That immeasurable, almost unimaginable, quantity of world-creating Causal Power is literally super-natural. And it is analogous to what I call, philosophically, Infinite Potential*5. :smile:



*1. Visualizing the Planck Length :
An imaginary radius smaller than anything you have ever seen or imagined
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=planck+scale+smallest+and+hottest#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:dc709fba,vid:bjVfL8uNkUk,st:57

*2. Planck Scale :
The Planck scale is a fundamental set of units where the current laws of physics break down, and both quantum mechanics and general relativity are needed to describe phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+planck+scale

*3. Math isn't Real :
The statement "math isn't real" is a philosophical debate, but it generally means that while the concepts of math are abstract human inventions, they are an incredibly useful tool for describing and modeling the real, physical world. Things like perfect circles or infinite numbers don't exist in reality, but they are useful concepts for understanding it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=math+is+not+real

*4. Planck's mathematical God :
Max Planck believed that science and religion both require a belief in God, but that each approaches this belief differently. For religion, God is the foundation and the starting point, while for science, God is the ultimate goal or the "crown" at the end of all reasoning. He saw no fundamental opposition between them, viewing them as complementary forces that both battle against skepticism and superstition.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=planck+god
Note --- Substitute "planckscale" in place of God, and you have a scientific "foundation and starting point" for our evolving Cosmos.

*5. A.N. Whitehead's beginning of an explication of the beginning of evolution :
However, if you think of the evolutionary Process as a computer Program, an appropriate metaphor might represent the system designer as a Programmer. “Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy of God and the mind includes the idea of a timeless mind that contains pure potentialities and a mind that is empathic with the world”. {Google AI Overview}
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page46.html

The fact that it is a standard symptom of schizophrenia ought give pause for thought. — apokrisis

That reason for concern may be why I remain skeptical of the brain-as-receiver postulation. Schizophrenia was interpreted by the ancients as demon possession. If so, then a demon-god might be the transmitter. Or a god with a few screws loose. :wink:

But where did the original Information (natural laws?) come from, that caused a living & thinking Cosmos to explode into existence? — Gnomon
Pfft. That is mysticism and not serious metaphysics. — apokrisis

The question may be Idealistic, but not Mystical. I'm sorry you don't see the key distinction between practical Mysticism (submission) and rational Meta-physics*1 (understanding). Mystics*2 tend to think of their beliefs & behaviors as a pragmatic practice of appeasing the invisible powers-that-be. But philosophers typically think of their beyond-physics musings as attempts to gain control over the immaterial laws & principles of Nature*3. Modern Science is the practical application of empirical knowledge, but Metaphysical Theories explore the remaining pockets of ignorance, especially the mysterious minds of sentient observers : the "Hard Problem".

If there were no human scientists & philosophers, the universe would not have "laws", just consistent physical behaviors (things fall down, but why?). Hence, the inquiring human mind infers from those orderly processes that physical activity is not random or chaotic*3. Instead, there is a limiting Logic to physical processes that reminded some of the early scientists of the Rule of Law that distinguished rational civilized human societies from instinctual dog-eat-dog barbarian & animal societies. Mysticism is the rule of Taboo, while Metaphysics is the rule of Reason.

The Logical Efficacy of human Science depends on the Logical Structure of Nature. The human mind can read that Logic as meaningful Information*4. But, in view of the Second Law of Entropy, a reasonable question is what-or-who enformed the orderly & evolving structure of the world? How did the mathematical Singularity gain the power & order to develop from no-thing to every-thing? The Big Bang was not a destructive explosion, but a constructive creation : from Math to Matter.

Physics is the science of concrete Things --- moved & transformed by abstract forces --- while Meta-physics is the science of abstract Forms (ideas ; essences ; causes). Scientism is a mystical belief system in which inert Matter takes the place of active Gods. Immanentism supports matter-based beliefs by drawing a line of taboo between a priori (before Bang) and a posteriori (after Bang).

A "hard" Atheist might be content to believe that the logical order of the natural system "just is" --- circular reasoning --- without asking philosophical "why" or "how" questions. Such as : the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"*5. Some of the early Greek philosophers even considered the Geometry of Nature as "sacred", while others were more pragmatic and down-to-earth*5. Do you think the universe is eternal & self-existent? Or do you accept the Cosmological evidence indicating that Nature as-we-know-it had a sudden inexplicable beginning? :chin:


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

*2. Mysticism vs Metaphysics :
Metaphysics uses rational, philosophical inquiry to understand reality's fundamental nature, while mysticism relies on direct, personal, and often spiritual experience to achieve a higher understanding.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=difference+between+metaphysics+and+mysticism

*3. Natural Law vs Chaos :
If the world just happens to be rationally ordered by natural laws, why couldn't it just happen not to be the following day?
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1aio8d/what_compels_the_universe_to_follow_natural_laws/
Note --- "Laws of nature" are universal, consistent, and factual statements that describe observed patterns in the natural world, such as gravity or thermodynamics.

*4. Logic as Information :
Logic can be understood as the study of information, examining how information is encoded, manipulated, and inferred.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logic+as+information

*5. Math is Metaphysical :
Mathematical metaphysics is the philosophical position that reality is fundamentally a mathematical structure and that existence is equivalent to being a mathematical object.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mathematics+metaphysics
Note --- Mathematical "objects" are actually abstract ideas in the mind of a subjective thinker.

↪Gnomon
You've landed on the only speculative element in my earlier response. That speculative comment you latched on to, is mainly my attempt to provide a kind of cosmic rationale for the existence of life, rather than seeing it as a kind of fluke of biochemistry. — Wayfarer

Yes. I found your "speculative element" to be compatible with my own hypothesizing. Your "cosmic rationale" of incipient drive for Life, and 's biosemiology speculation of entropic drive, seem to be similar to my own semi-scientific* philosophical rationale of EnFormAction as a natural evolutionary tendency toward Life & Mind. Since a Tendency (inclination toward an end) can't be seen in a telescope, none of these conjectures has hard scientific evidence. But soft rational inference may provide sufficient reasons for viewing Life & Mind as intentional (willful?) instead of an accidental "fluke".

Several prominent philosophers & scientists have proposed similar cosmic DRIVEs with less scientific backup : Schopenhauer's cosmic WILL*1, Bergson's ELAN VITAL*2, and Spinoza's CONATUS*3. So, your speculative rationale has a long history. But only in recent years has physical science pointed in the same direction, by combining Quantum Fields with Information Causation*4.

I don't know if physical Science will ever accept the logical implications of these speculations, but metaphysical Philosophy should be able to see evidence of Intention in Evolution*5. Of course, Teleology is heresy for Materialists, but may be unavoidable for Idealists . . . . and fodder for further debate. :cool:

* based on current sciences of Quantum Physics & Information Theory

*1. Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
EnFormAction is similar to Schop's Cosmic Will, except that it is characterized as Intentional instead of Accidental, and Purposeful instead of Aimless.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

*2. Elan Vital :
The concept of élan vital is also similar to Baruch Spinoza's concept of conatus*3 as well as Arthur Schopenhauer's concept of the will-to-live and the Sanskrit āyus or "life principle".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lan_vital

*3. Conatus :
is a Latin term for an effort, striving, or impulse, but it is most famously used in philosophy, particularly by Spinoza, to mean the innate drive of all things to persevere in their own existence and to enhance themselves. This concept applies to everything from the physical will to live in an organism to the metaphysical tendency of a thing to exist as its true nature
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=conatus+meaning

*4. Active Information :
Quantum physicist David Peat . . . . To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

*5. Holism and Creative Evolution :
Change is typically imagined as a cause & effect Mechanism, but Bergson seems to view Darwinian evolution as a kind of Teleology or Entelechy.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page25.html

My tentative answer is that there is, at least, a kind of incipient drive towards conscious existence woven, somehow, into the fabric of the cosmos. And that through its manifest forms of organic existence, horizons of being are disclosed that would otherwise never be realised. — Wayfarer
Well biosemiosis has now turned all this from metaphysical speculation into firm science. What is woven into the initial conditions of the physical world is the incipient inevitability of its Second Law entropic drive running into a form of systemhood that can exploit its own loophole. — apokrisis

's "incipient drive" (nascent power) sounds like another way to describe my own notion of EnFormAction (the power to transform : Energy + Form + Causation). And the "entropic drive" of your nascent science of "biosemiosis"*1 (Decoding Life Signs)*2 may also be relevant to the topic of this thread.

However, identifying the Cosmic Encoder of the program (language) for Life & Mind remains an open question for both science and philosophy. All three proposals are currently "metaphysical speculations" with the potential to coalesce into a new science integrating biology, psychology & cosmology. When we learn to speak the language of Nature, maybe we will come to "know the mind of God"*3.

The Initial Conditions of the Big Bang necessarily included Causal Power (energy) and Limiting Laws (program for directing energy). But the pre-bang source of those necessities is elided (omitted) from most scientific accounts of the origin of our universe. So hypothetical speculations on "what existed before the Bang?" include such unscientific non-empirical notions as eternal/infinite Gods, eternal Inflation, everlasting Multiverses, or unbounded sets of Many Worlds.

Physical science, though, begins after the Planck time-gap of the Big-Bang-beginning itself. At which time the metaphysical Laws of Thermodynamics were already in effect. And everything after that puzzling "low entropy" initial condition is defined as Entropic, where the Energy of the Bang coasts downhill toward a hypothetical Big-Freeze-ending, characterized by the total disorganization of "Cosmic heat death".

Yet somehow --- after a few billion years of deadly entropy --- Order, Organization and Organic-life emerged, despite the "absolute" Second Law of Thermodynamics. Apparently, that Incipient Drive*4, woven into the fabric of matter-energy, was programmed to produce the "manifest forms" that we experience as perceived Reality. But who or what was the programmer of biological & psychological codes that have manifested in animated & intentional matter?

My Information-based concept of EnFormAction, or Enformy (negentropy) may be another term for the hypothetical incipient drive that produced the orderly systems of Life, which communicate and reproduce via the physical & metaphysical processes of Biosemiosis (DNA + code). But where did the original Information (natural laws?) come from, that caused a living & thinking Cosmos to explode into existence? That may be the implicit & annoying "un-scientific" un-proveable Ontological question that provokes the antipathy displayed by some biological entities in their replies to this thread. For the record, my answer is "I don't know". :nerd:


*1. Biosemiosis is the process by which all living organisms interpret and communicate through signs,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiosis
Note --- Signs & Symbols are patterns of matter (e.g. on-off, black-white) that convey useful information within a system. But only sentient entities are aware of the meaning of that information.

*2. Organic Information :
Life is a complex phenomenon characterized by a set of universal biological traits, including cellular organization, metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and heredity. It is a process that involves organized biological matter with the capacity for self-sustaining processes and evolution. Information, particularly in the form of DNA, plays a crucial role by providing instructions for building and regulating the components of an organism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=life+information
Note --- Biological Codes are patterns of matter (DNA) that can be interpreted by RNA for information necessary to build & regulate structural & biological functions.

*3. Mind of God :
The phrase "know the mind of God" is often used by physicists like Stephen Hawking to describe the ultimate goal of science : to find a unified, complete, and simple theory that explains all the laws of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physicist+to+know+the+mind+of+god
Note --- For the purposes of this thread, Inceptive Cosmos is the source of all energy (cause) and laws (codes) that eventually created a path to Life & Mind.

*4. Active Information :
Quantum physicist David Peat worked with, and was influenced by both Bohm and Roger Penrose, who also postulated some unorthodox theories of physics and metaphysics. I borrowed the name of his article¹ for this blog post. There, he noted that “Towards the end of the 1980s David Bohm introduced the notion of Active Information into his Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”. To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

Well, I think you'll find my thoughts, such as they are, disappointing. . . .
So I don't think it's appropriate to speak of the cosmos creating mind if it's intended to suggest the cosmos somehow intentionally made mind, or us for that matter. I know of no evidence supporting those claims. . . . . .
Perhaps they were pantheists or panpsychists--I don't particularly care which. I find the general idea of such a cosmos attractive. But I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma {animating principle} it will be established through science, not philosophy. — Ciceronianus

"Disappointing"? Do you think I am emotionally invested in the "science of Noetics"*1? For me it's just an interesting philosophical approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness : phenomenal experience, or what it's like to be a person. My interest in the elusive topic of Mind is philosophical, not scientific*2. Any "science" of Noetics is limited to the soft science of Psychology, which draws inferences about holistic mental states (e.g. intentions) from particular neural states (electro-chemical activity). But, how do neurons & electrons create meaningful ideas? Noetics postulates that ideas are signals from outside the brain. Personally, I'm skeptical. But the analogy with immaterial radio signals (mathematical waves, not material particles) is suggestive. So, I can't categorically deny the possibility. Hence, this thread.

"Appropriate" relative to what standard? If your philosophy is Materialism, then of course any talk about immaterial stuff like metaphysical Minds & Cosmic signals would be inappropriate. But this is a Philosophy forum, so if discussion of immaterial stuff is banned, then it should be renamed The Physics Forum. Is the "animating principle" of Life & Mind elucidated in an authoritative physics text? Does Physics have a material definition of the Causal Principle of the Cosmos? Materialism seems to treat Mind as immaterial, hence it literally & figuratively doesn't matter. Scientism treats the "Hard Problem" as solved finito, hence the hay is in the barn : cut & dried. Do you agree?

If discussion of Intention on a philosophy forum is inappropriate, then yes I would be disappointed. But what kind of "evidence" do you think is appropriate for the topic of Cosmos Created Mind? The title of this thread was intentionally flipped from 's Mind Created World thread. Which did not imply that your mind created the whole physical world, but left open the possibility that some cosmic intentional (teleological) Mind created the dynamic physical Universe, which in turn created (by evolution) living & thinking creatures. Instead it referred to the common understanding that human mind imagines a metaphysical model of its physical environment that the person treats as-if it's real*2.

If you think the Hard Problem of Mind has been solved by Science, then you may be influenced by the dogma of Scientism, which holds that All Truth is revealed by Physics & Chemistry. But what about Mathematics? I'm currently reading a 1948 memoir by philosopher/mathematician A.N. Whitehead. In a chapter on Axioms of Geometry, he discusses "absolute and relative theories of space", noting that Isaac Newton believed that "space has an existence . . . independent of the bodies {matter} which it contains". Whitehead concluded that "geometry is not a science with a determinate subject matter". Does that mean Math exists only in Minds, hence is not Real?

Then along came Einstein with his Theory of Relativity, indicating that objects are knowable only in relation to other objects, and that "only relative motion is directly measurable". The relevant point being that all we know about the world is subjective ideas in a Mind. Do you think physical science provides us with Absolute Knowledge, so that exploring Metaphysical (mental) aspects of reality is a waste of (immaterial, immeasurable) Time? :chin:


*1. Noetic science is not considered real by mainstream science because its claims, such as telepathy and telekinesis, are not supported by empirical evidence and are classified as pseudoscience by organizations like Quackwatch.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+noetics+a+real+science

*2. Cosmos : The mind creates a model of the world by actively constructing a perception of reality based on sensory input, past experiences, and predictions. It doesn't passively receive information but instead interprets and pieces together fragmented data to create a coherent, subjective experience that allows for prediction and survival. This internal model is constantly being updated and is why individuals can have different interpretations of the same events
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mind+creates+a+model+of+the+world

No, they are not related except they both have a "pan" prefix which refers to "all," "of everything," or "completely." They are completely different things. — T Clark

I assume that you are passionately defending the worldview of Spinoza's philosophical PanTheism from the ancient "New Age" notion of PanPsychism. But they are only antithetical for devout believers. I'm aware that likes to portray Panpsychism as "nonsense" compared to Spinoza's scientific sense. But from an objective perspective, someone not ardently committed to one belief system or the other may not see any incompatibility*1.

I'm not a true believer in either view, but a loosely related "pan-" label, PanEnDeism*2, could be applied to my own non-religious philosophical understanding of how & why the world works as it does : supporting the immaterial processes of Life & Mind. But my thesis uses the more scientific term Information instead of spooky Psyche. :smile:

PS___ I don't know enough about Noetics to pin any of these "-ism" labels on it.


*1. Spinoza's philosophy is both pantheistic and panpsychist because it identifies God with Nature and sees everything in the universe as an aspect of this single substance, including mind and matter. His pantheism is the view that God is identical with the universe ("God, or Nature"). His panpsychism is the view that mind is a fundamental and pervasive feature of reality, such that every physical thing has a mind as one of its attributes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+pantheism+and+panpsychism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

*2. Panendeismis a belief system that combines elements of panentheism (God is in the universe) and deism (God does not intervene supernaturally after creation), asserting that God both pervades the universe and transcends it.

↪Gnomon
Thanks for the information. — Ciceronianus

I was hoping you might suggest a hypothetical answer to the topical question : "But how does such an ethereal notion [pneuma ; aether] relate to the title of this thread?" What feature of the Cosmos, as a whole system, could explain the emergence of both Life & Mind (processes) on a minor planet in an ordinary galaxy?

I've been exploring alternatives to ancient Materialist theories (e.g. Pneuma ; Aether) in my blog*1. And the only common factor I've found is phenomenal Causation (energy ; force ; power) directed by noumenal Organization (natural laws), which together I call EnFormAction (the power to transform) or just Information*2. But what is the ultimate source of Cause & Laws of the universe*3? :chin:


*1. Cosmology and Evolution :
Divine Design vs Teleological Evolution vs Scientific Serendipity
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page41.html

*2. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
Ironically, as a critic of religion, Schop’s “Will” combines phenomenal causation and noumenal representation⁴ into a single concept, similar to the Holy Spirit of the Bible. . . . .
Schopenhauer argued that the flawed world is not rationally organized⁸. But, if so, how could reasoning beings evolve, and how could human Science gain control over the physical realm?
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

# Factor : a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.

The ancient Stoics were stubborn materialists, but believed in a rarefied form of material, generally called pneuma, which was the generative force of the cosmos. Pneuma was a part of all things, organic and inorganic, but had different grades, one of which formed the rational mind/soul of human beings. — Ciceronianus

Good point! Pneuma (air ; fire) was an ancient materialistic theory that equated invisible Breath (oxygen) with Life, Spirit, Soul & Mind. Today, we know more about the transparent chemical gas that is essential to Life, and ultimately to Mind. But, the modern essence of Life (animation) is Energy, and Oxygen is merely a catalyst*1. Yet, while we know what Energy does (action ; causation), scientists can't say what it is (essence).

The enduring concept of Pneuma as the ethereal essence of dynamic reality ("generative force of the cosmos") is now retreaded in a modern theory of consciousness*2. This evolving terminology is similar to ancient Aether, which was long-ago debunked as a non-scientific spiritual concept, but the name has recently been resurrected in Quantum Field theory*3. So, Pneuma is now portrayed as a vacuum full of immaterial Energy. But how does such an ethereal notion relate to the title of this thread? :smile:


*1. Oxygen as Energy matchmaker :
Most aerobic organisms, including humans, use oxygen to break down food, a process that generates chemical energy in the form of ATP, which is necessary for all life functions.

*2. Quantum consciousness :
Theories, such as Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory, are seen as modern successors to pneuma, suggesting consciousness is not a mere byproduct of matter but a fundamental aspect of reality itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pneuma+modern+science

*3. Aether as energy field :
In the 21st century, the concept of aether is largely considered obsolete in mainstream physics, having been replaced by quantum field theory and the quantum vacuum.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=21st+century+aether

But that would be leading the conversation back into the realm of the actually scientific. — apokrisis

I didn't intend for this thread, on a philosophy forum, to be a scientific analysis of evidence for "signals from the cosmos". Other than as a Noetic postulate to resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence of intelligible signals being received and interpreted by the brain, except of course as energetic inputs (light, sound) from the local environment. Instead, I'm asking for philosophical reasoning about the likelihood or possibility of "non-local" inputs of meaningful signals from an intelligent source out there in the Cosmos at large. :chin:

So it is the same old causal debate. Top-down holism vs bottom-up contruction. Two ways of treating consciousness as a reified "thing" – an elemental property of nature. But two opposite ways of framing that fact. — apokrisis

Now, we're getting somewhere! My own --- philosophical, not scientific --- musings, about the hard problem, point toward Causation (natural energy, gravity, forces) as the precursor of Consciousness in biological entities. This is a holistic interpretation instead of a reductive inference from specific observations. If so, then perhaps human awareness is a high-level function of brain processes, not a reified thing or substance like the aether. All natural processes must have some evolutionary fitness function to avoid being weeded-out by natural selection. And all physical processes, including brain functions, require Energy.

Moreover, professional scientists have recently inferred from their observations that change-causing Energy is a special form of generic Information*1. And ideas in the human mind are also forms of meaningful information, yes?. Therefore, practical Science points to a natural relationship between Consciousness & Causation. However, the topic of this thread is about the possibility that some Cosmic Intelligence --- (gods or aliens or overflowing black holes*2) the novel leaves the Source open to interpretation --- is beaming meaningful signals into our brains in order to produce the ideas that we arrogant apes assume are our own creation. :nerd:


*1. The statement "energy is information" is a complex and debated concept, but it reflects the deep relationship between the two: energy is a fundamental aspect of information, as physical information requires energy to be carried, and information can be viewed as a form of energy or a measure of a system's organization. While not a simple equivalence, theories propose that information and energy are intrinsically linked and potentially convertible, as demonstrated in a physical experiment where information was converted into energy. {details in the link}
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*2. black hole information paradox, a conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. It questions what happens to the information of matter that falls into a black hole, as quantum mechanics dictates that information cannot be destroyed, while Hawking's theory suggested black holes radiate away matter without recovering this information. This paradox arises because a black hole's only observable properties are its mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, which are not enough to reconstruct the original information of what fell in.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=black+hole+information
Note --- Like Energy, perhaps Information cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. But, no, I don't take the Black Hole Source seriously. Do you?

It is only likely in a block universe of pre-determined events of experience, while in presentism the brain produces the experiential from one's nature and nurture, although still determined as time goes along. The two implementations, or messengers, deliver the same message of being; it's like a music CD versus a live band. — PoeticUniverse

Thanks for making a rational philosophical suggestion, instead of emotional political derision. :razz:

Which do you think is "likely" : A> the pre-recorded Block Universe theory / Eternalism (everything, everywhere, all at once) or B> live event Presentism (one experience at a time)?
In either analogy, does that mean you agree or disagree with the fictional Noetic scientist, that our personal ideas are actually signals from the Cosmos (recorded or live ; local or non-local ; cosmic or proprietary)? Am I wrong to believe that “my Ideas are my own personal creation”? Could you copyright your poems & videos, or list cosmic credits on the label? :smile:

Radio analogy : "The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism)". ___ From OP
If my personal sense of awareness (receiver) is actually processing a broadcast signal or narrowcast message, what does that imply about the source/transmitter? : (e.g. Theistic Pantheism vs Atheistic Panpsychism) :nerd:

The OP does mention PanTheism, which is a religious form of philosophical PanPsychism. — Gnomon
This is not true. Pantheism and panpsychism are entirely different things. — T Clark

You are just being contrarian & polemic & off-topic. I didn't say they are the same thing, but only that they are related, as a general Form and and a particular Thing are related (hylomorph). Do you understand the relationship between Islam and Monotheism? One is a specific doctrinal religion, while the other is a general doctrine regarding Deity : Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all philosophically monotheistic, but differ in specific doctrinal beliefs.

The quoted -isms are different in that Pantheism is a religious worldview, while Panpsychism is a philosophical theory. By analogy, Theism is a religious belief, while Deism is a philosophical concept. Can you see the relationship (world creator) and the distinction (miraculous intervention vs natural evolution)?

Now that you have made your us-vs-them political position clear, can we get back on the philosophical topic : "The key presumption {of Noetics} is that Consciousness is non-local, i.e. Cosmic Mind (Panpsychism)".? :cool:


Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe, identifying divinity with all of existence, while panpsychism is the philosophical idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, present in all matter. Pantheism is a religious concept, often seen as an alternative to traditional theism by rejecting a transcendent, separate God. Panpsychism is more of a metaphysical theory about consciousness itself, though it is often explored in conjunction with pantheistic ideas to consider whether the universe can be a conscious, divine mind.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pantheism+panpsychism+religion

Pantheism and panpsychism are related but distinct concepts; pantheism is a religious philosophy equating God with the universe, while panpsychism is a philosophical view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. Panpsychism can be used to support pantheism by suggesting that the universal consciousness is divine.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pantheism+panpsychism+religion

You’re OP is not about panpsychism. It’s not even mentioned. It’s primarily about consciousness being the result the transmission from outside the body. — T Clark

First, let me clarify that the title of this thread does not describe my own philosophy, but an attempt to encapsulate the worldview underlying Noetic "science" as described in Dan Brown's mystical mystery novel. The OP does mention PanTheism, which is a religious form of philosophical PanPsychism.

So, when I'm accused of promoting PseudoScience, I have to strenuously deny it. But from a hard-core Materialist perspective the difference is literally immaterial. My non-scientific & non-religious personal philosophical worldview may sound like PanTheism to you, but I call it Enformationism*2, which is based primarily on Quantum Physics and Information Theory. And it's more like Taoism than theology. :smile:


*1. The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown is a novel that explores themes of consciousness, noetic sciences, and mysticism, which are closely related to panpsychism by suggesting that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality and can exist beyond the physical brain. The book's central premise involves the brain acting as a "mind receiver" for consciousness, aligning with the idea that mind and consciousness are not just byproducts of matter, but are a fundamental part of the universe itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=novel+%22secret+of+secrets%22+panpsychism

*2. Creative Mind and Cosmic Order :
Even Darwin implied that the evolution of cognition enhanced the survival of organisms : “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” In other words, wisdom is the most powerful force for surviving and thriving in a world of constant change, and of competition for life’s necessary resources. In 1907, Henri Bergson published his book, Creative Evolution, in which he postulated the existence of a Life Force (elan vital)²⁵. In my own hypothesis, I denote that creative causal force by a technical term : EnFormAction²⁶, denoting a combination of change-causing Energy and organizing Information. Where Energy provides the transformative force, and Information (blueprint) delivers the design intention for configuration.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

PS___ A century ago, Einstein made some "cosmological" calculations, and was appalled to see that the result indicated a dynamic universe instead of the static world he preferred. So, he added an arbitrary constant lambda (λ) to balance the equation, and later recalled it as his greatest "blunder". Today, I could use the dynamic & directional term EnFormAction in place of lambda, but then I'm not a scientist. Merely, a theorising amateur philosopher. :joke:

In earlier works , like Principles of Psychology, his approach was mainly materialistic. But toward the end of his career his thinking became more speculative. In the essay, he proposes that the idea that the brain transmits rather than produces consciousness is philosophically and scientifically conceivable, and perhaps better fits the facts than strict materialism. — Joshs

I was not aware that W. James had speculated on brain as receiver or transmitter*1. accused me of promoting pseudoscience, where I'm merely exploring an idea that is novel to me.

My current view of Human Consciousness is that it is emergent from Information processing, and ceases when the processor dies. But, confronted with the Hard Problem, I have tried to trace the path of Information (EnFormAction)*2 --- both causal & meaningful --- back to the Big Bang and beyond. Hence, the Ontological & Epistemological question remains : where did the Energy & Laws --- two forms of Information --- of the nascent universe originate? Modern science has no empirical answer ; so we speculate. :smile:


*1. The idea that the brain transmits consciousness rather than produces it is a minority theory that suggests the brain acts as a receiver or filter, similar to a radio receiving a broadcast. This perspective, first explored by William James, proposes that consciousness is a fundamental field that the brain tunes into, which explains why the brain's structure and health can affect its perception of consciousness. In contrast, the prevailing view in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity, generated by the brain itself, and ceases to exist when the brain dies
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=brain+transmits+rather+than+produces+consciousness

*2. Is Information a Fundamental Force of the Universe? :
A distinguished geoscientist and rising-star astrobiologist offer a stunning new theory . . . .
Robert Hazen and Michael Wong discuss their bold proposal for a new law of nature, centered around the idea that information is as fundamental to the cosmos as mass, energy or charge.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/videos/is-information-a-fundamental-force-of-the-universe/

is that not another instance of "forms" activating "matter?"
In that case, not an inversion of the Wayfarer thread. — Paine

I don't know. What do you think?
Regarding "inversion" see my reply to TClark.

The link you provided doesn’t really identify any scientists who support panpsychism, although it does identify some philosophers. Can you name some scientists who do? . . . .
This is not a philosophical question at all—it’s a scientific one. Does our consciousness result from signals coming from outside our bodies? — T Clark

This question is off-topic, because the thread is about a fictional pseudo-scientific worldview, not (or not yet) a mainstream scientific hypothesis. I was hoping to get some feedback from Wayfarer to see if the novel's implicit --- not explicit --- Cosmic Mind worldview is similar to his own Idealistic philosophy. I made-up the Cosmos Created Mind label, as an inversion of the Mind Created World thread.

FWIW, I don't consider Panpsychism to be a scientific theory, because it may be untestable. But it is a legitimate philosophical ontological hypothesis. Nevertheless, the previous link names some serious scientists*1*2 who find the concept of a Mind-based Universe plausible. If you are really interested, you can do a Google search to find a lot more credentialed scientists, who admit to taking the Mind before Matter notion seriously. Personally, I'm skeptical of the Cosmic Signal hypothesis. But I could be proven wrong. :nerd:


*1. Neuroscientist Christof Koch is a proponent of a modern, scientifically-informed version of panpsychism, the belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=koch+panpsychism

*2. How scientists are engaging with panpsychism :
# Experimental research:
Some scientists, like Michael Levin, are actively looking for empirical evidence of consciousness in simple organisms that lack a nervous system.
# Theoretical exploration:
Some have proposed that panpsychism could be a "physics of panpsychism" that would provide a scientific basis for the idea. Others, like Giulio Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory, have developed frameworks that are compatible with panpsychism.
# As a response to the hard problem:
Panpsychism is seen by some as a way to address the "hard problem of consciousness," which is how subjective experience arises from purely physical matter. By positing that consciousness is fundamental, panpsychism offers a way to bypass the difficulty of explaining its emergence from non-conscious matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

I’m glad we’ve finally got a credible source of evidence for your ideas—a Dan Brown novel. — T Clark

Sarcasm noted. This novel is no more scientific than The DaVinci Code, and not cited as "evidence" for any particular aspect of objective reality. But its discussion of a controversial philosophical concept is evidence of some far-out philosophical conjectures that are out-there in the ether. Quite a few prominent scientists have embraced Panpsychism*1 as an explanation for the emergence of human sentience.

I'm not buying the notion of brain tissue as receiver of divine signals*2, but I'm open to the possibility, pending further evidence. And I use this forum as place to explore unconventional ideas, honed by skeptical reasoning, not ridicule. :smile:


*1. Some scientists are exploring panpsychism as a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how physical matter can give rise to subjective experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

*2. "I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars." ____excerpt from OP

"this work proposes that the distinction between natural and synthetic minds may be ontologically meaningless: all cognition, whether organic or digital, is a continuation of nature’s evolving self-awareness."
I've only skimmed the OP, and probably didn't grok it all, but in general it seems to agree with my own thesis : Enformationism*1. The thesis doesn't specifically address the question of Artificial Intelligence, but one implication of Causal Information might be that the Cosmos is evolving toward self-awareness, and biology-based human Mind is merely one step in the process of becoming God, and AI is the next step. I'm not confident enough to bet on that teleological outcome though. :wink:

PS___ Does "Cosmic Bigotry" refer to a teleological preference for sentience?

*1. EnFormAction :
A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. That made-up name combines Energy + Form + Actual into a single stream of Causation, beginning with the First Cause of all aspects of the world. It’s a Theory of Everything, including both Physics & Metaphysics (Mind).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be an update to the 17th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient ideologies of Spiritualism. It's a "substance" in the sense of Aristotle's definition as Essence.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*3. Cosmic Bigotry in favor of Intelligence :
Yet, neither Process & Reality, nor my own thesis of Enformationism are accepted scientific theories. They are simply novel ways to think about our evolving Reality, and its progression from a Big Bang outburst to the emergence of sentient creatures that ask questions about their provenance. Besides, Whitehead’s own notion of “evolution” is a teleological⁶ progression of Becoming that is similar to Schopenhauer’s Will (causation), except ANW portrayed it as the end-directed willpower of a pantheistic law-making God, that he defines as a “Principle of Limitation”. And of course, all Natural Laws are limits on the path of evolution.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

I Googled "John Collier" and got nothing relevant. — Gnomon
Just click the link I provided, — apokrisis

Thanks for the link. I scanned the long, technical document, and found it was mostly over my amateur head. But the AI summary revealed that some of the concepts covered are compatible with my non-professional thesis. For example "Causation as Information Transfer" is equivalent to the Information = Energy sources in the thesis. Collier's "The Role of Form" is essentially the same as my usage of Platonic Form. Also "Quantification of Form and Complexity" is basically what the Santa Fe institute is doing. And "The Negentropy Principle of Information" is what I call EnFormAction or Enformy*1. So, it seems that we are thinking along the same lines. :smile:



*1. 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 (physicists call it Negentropy), 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".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Actually, the fundamentalist religion of my childhood was about as non-mystical as possible. — Gnomon
Really? The 'Holy Ghost' is non-mystical, how peculiar. — Pieter R van Wyk

I didn't say "not mystical but "As non mystical as possible" for a viable religion. My religious upbringing didn't emphasize the Pentecostal gifts of the Holy Spirit, but did focus on rational beliefs to support emotional faith. However, my own reasoning concluded that their faith in a 2000 year old book was misplaced. Hence, I now have no religious beliefs, and no religious community. I'm alone in philosophical limbo, except for a few argumentative skeptics on an internet forum. :wink:

You can put your religion anywhere you want. If you name it religion then it should be that, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk

As I said, "I would place my religion right next to (but not in) the lenticular overlap." So it remains in the Religion category, not the Science class. Is that reasonable for you? :smile:

Not always offended, but puzzled that you would be resistant to learning of the philosophers and scientists already saying much the same thing in a more nailed down fashion. . . . . But having the discipline of a research mentality is the only way to reach the inner circles of current thought. And that is just the way it is. — apokrisis

I'm a retired professional architect, and an part-time amateur philosopher, working a retirement gig to make ends meet. So I have very limited time or inclination for academic discipline. And no ambition to "reach the inner circles of thought". That's why my "resistance to learning" may be more charitably termed "time management".

My current "research" is mostly Googling names and terms I'm not familiar with. I Googled "John Collier" and got nothing relevant. But I would invest some time to see what he has to say about Enformation. Back when I started writing-up my Enformationism thesis, the term Informationism was already being used in a different context. So, I added the initial "E" to emphasize the Energy & Entropy aspects.

If you have the time to scan the website*1 & blog*2, you may see that I have already done considerable "research". Most of my references are scientists, so the philosophical inferences are my own amateur musings, not the "nailed down" conclusions of professional metaphysicians. But if you know of something I've missed, please let me know. :smile:


*1. Enformationism :
This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*2. Introduction to Enformationism :
Yet, it’s based on the emerging evidence that invisible Information, instead of tangible Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe, including Energy, Matter, and Mind.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

I haven’t a degree in philosophy (accounting and finance instead, 2023 graduate) but I’m highly, highly interested in it. — KantRemember

The only philosophy course I took in college was Logic. And that was a math requirement. My interest in philosophy, post college, was mainly in looking for a substitute worldview to replace my childhood religious indoctrination. But I never had time to get into philosophy seriously until after retirement. And most of my autodidact education since college has been obtained from science books with a philosophical inclination.

I've had minimal communication and interaction with other philosophers, until I started posting on intellectual forums. Some on TPF have formal academic training, but most seem to be what I call "amateur" philosophers, and self-taught, like me. But, you are not likely to get training that is up to "academic standards". Also, as warned : " Autodidacticism can lead to eccentricity, or worse".

I assume he would put me in that category, since I have a shallow & narrow focus on a few topics of interest to me, but don't fit neatly into any of the traditional philosophical viewpoints, such as Idealism or Realism. Instead, I call my personal worldview Enformationism, which is unconventional, idiosyncratic, and mostly science-based : e.g. quantum physics & information theory & systems theory.

My ideology doesn't conform to any of the authoritative doctrines & systems*1, but has some affinity with several, including A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy. Like you, my retirement hobby has touched on a variety of scholarly topics, but with little academic rigor. Do you see yourself becoming a Platonian, or Kantian or Hegelian or Marxist, or Existentialist, or a master of some other formal system of thought?

Some TPF posters are offended by my unorthodox views, but most accept a bit of oddity as typical of independent thinkers. So, since your time is limited, you might find that this forum will give you access to a variety of views, and experience with having your beliefs challenged. You may have thin skin at first, but it will toughen as you endure critical analysis of your favorite values & assumptions. :smile:


*1. Philosophical systems are comprehensive, interconnected frameworks of thought that offer structured perspectives on fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reality, such as Plato's Idealism, Aristotle's Logic, Kant's critical philosophy, Hegel's absolute idealism, Whitehead's process philosophy, and Ervin Laszlo's Systems Philosophy. These systems provide a lens to understand the world and shape cultural beliefs, offering foundational principles and a coherence that allows for interpretation of complex phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+systems

In my understanding, religion is a collection of humans subscribing to a similar form of mysticism — Pieter R van Wyk

Actually, the fundamentalist religion of my childhood was about as non-mystical as possible. It was an extreme form of Protestantism, which eliminated most of the mystical and political features of Catholicism. Which left only the social bonding of those who held the "like precious faith" in a leather-bound idol : a byblos.

I call it (bible-thumping) Baptist Lite : a religion stripped-down to the bare bones. No Pope, no saints, no Marian apparitions, no Trinity, no Mysticism (direct communication with God), no candles, no incense, no magic wafers of flesh & wheat, etc. It was a "back to the Bible" religion, with very little ceremonial tradition.

Ironically, as I later discovered, the "Word of God", was literally the word, not of God, but of Judaized & Platonized Romans, who eventually, in response to nagging heresies, began to call their Church "Catholic" (universal) or "Orthodox" (true doctrine).

The "bare bones" of my local (uncentralized) religion was human reason. Our preachers argued philosophically, based on Bible facts, against the mystical aspects of other protestants, especially the Charismatics & Holy Rollers. So, the only remaining mysticism was Faith in written revelation (Bible). And most of the evidence for that Faith was trust in the eyewitness testimony of Jesus' disciples.

And yet, Saul/Paul --- who wrote half the New Testament, and influenced most of the gospels --- never saw Jesus in the flesh. So his visionary testimony founded a new Gentile religion that had little overlap with the teachings of the presumptive Jewish Messiah.

Consequently, in the Venn diagram, I would place my religion right next to (but not in) the lenticular overlap. :halo:

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible. — Pieter R van Wyk

Empirical Science and Emotional Religion are indeed "incompatible", in the sense that information drawn from one domain (public vs private knowledge) does not directly map onto the facts/beliefs of the other. That's why S.J. Gould took the cooperative attitude that Science & Religion are "non-overlapping" systems of thought, hence not in direct competition.

However, if you look at those doctrinal magisteria as a venn diagram of human wisdom, you may see a small area of overlap, which could be labeled as Philosophy : Rational but not Empirical ; Ideal but not necessarily Real. Plato and Aristotle worked together, but one focused on metaphysical Ideality (abstract & utopian) while the other emphasized physical Reality (practical & pragmatic). Yet their disparate philosophies did overlap in the middle : pursuit of Truth. :smile:

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile: — Gnomon
The evidence you presented are most compelling. Thank you. — Pieter R van Wyk

I haven't viewed the video, but I get the impression that the OP is actually proposing the integration of metaphysical Mysticism (not Religion) --- i.e. personal, not social --- with physical Science. Although I'm still skeptical, history records a variety of mystical notions that are considered by adherents as a kind of practical science or technology.

The most obvious example is Buddhism, conceived as a science of the Mind*1, and indirectly of Matter, via introspection instead of microscopes & telescopes. Since the results are mostly subjective, I can't argue "show me the evidence"*2, without doing the experiential experiments personally.

Empirical science focuses on external public Reality, while subjective mysticism concentrates on internal private Ideality. Does the video explain how to reconcile those divergent perspectives? :smile:


*1. "Mystical science" can refer to a quest for truth that goes beyond conventional methods, encompassing fields like Buddhism, Tantra, and Sufism. It can also refer to the historical and sometimes pseudoscientific attempt to blend spiritual and mystical understanding with scientific concepts, such as alchemy or modern attempts to link quantum physics and mysticism. While traditional science is based on observation and experiment, mystical science often involves subjective experience, intuition, and beliefs about realities beyond the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mystical+science

*2. Mysticism is the pursuit of direct, personal experience of the divine or ultimate reality, often through practices like meditation, prayer, and contemplation. It can be found across many religious traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and various forms of Western mysticism. Mystics aim to achieve a state of union or deep connection with a transcendent reality, believing this direct experience provides a form of knowledge that transcends reason and sensory perception.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=MYSTICISM

CAN PHILOSOPHY RECONCILE IDEAL and REAL WORLDVIEWS?

You claim it is possible to integrate science and religion. This implies, I think, that you know, exactly, what is science and what is religion. Please share your definitions else comments will not be valid. — Pieter R van Wyk

Your challenge to define the terms of this thread sparked an idea in my own head.

The etymology of Religion is "to link back to the past", which I take to mean Tradition. And "blind faith" is typically associated with almost all religious traditions. But another interpretation might be Loyalty to a social group. Which may explain why the average member of a faith community*1 has only a vague notion of theological doctrine, but nevertheless feels emotionally bound to their own social group, sharing norms & values, but not necessarily dogma.

The etymology of Science is "to know", which I take to mean Rational Information instead of emotional bondage. But Catholic Theology was an attempt to integrate Greek Science with Jewish Religion. Unfortunately, it was a marriage of convenience --- serving the imperial secular government --- that fell apart repeatedly over the years, as disparate social groups developed different interpretations of the "facts" of their received doctrine. That divergence of Faith led to heresies & excommunication & sectarian conflict & physical punishment, not unity & integration.

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile:


*1. Faith Community :
". . . to them that have obtained like precious faith"
2 Peter 1:1-8

More so, the laws say nothing about the ‘now’ point. In this static universe of space-time, any flow of ‘time’, or passage through it thus must be a mental construct or an illusion. — PoeticUniverse

Now*1 is not an objective physical thing, but as you noted, a metaphysical subjective label for the ephemeral Planck time between instances of Cause and Effect, which are also labels for instants of Change, or a snapshot of Becoming. If you subtract Before from After, the result is Change or Difference.

Perhaps that fleeting connect-the-dots experience of Change, of Difference, is what gives us the impression of a direction or arrow of Time. We still don't know what causes Causation, but we label it as "Energy", and vaguely define it as Ability or Power or Capacity or Work, and imagine it as-if an invisible Substance. We could just as well call it "Magic". Which may be why the OP is opposed to Causation.

Sorry. Just riffing on a theme. :wink:

*1. The philosophy concept of "now" is complex and has been explored in various ways, often touching on the nature of time, existence, and perception. Key philosophical discussions around "now" include the idea that it is a fleeting, ever-changing moment, and questions about whether it is an objective reality or a subjective experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+%22now%22+concept

Causation. — Gnomon
See my post above. — PoeticUniverse

Good post!

Whitehead's living, evolving, organic worldview resonates better with me, than the static "geometric" Block Time model*1. It better explains the incessant Change, and inexorable Causation that we humans experience and record in our Science & History. His Actual Occasions*2 are ticks on the cosmic clock, and serve as Atoms of Evolution.

As a Dynamic Block Model of physics, Whitehead's theory describes a scientific, non-religious concept similar to traditional metaphysical god-models, but also to modern models of physical Nature*3. It even includes Human Experience as a key feature of the living organism that is growing from a space-time quickening (Big Bang) into the on-going Reality that sentient creatures explore in their individual quests for survival. What the Cosmos was prior to the quickening is unknowable to humans (ontology). What we experience now is reality (axiology). What the cosmos will ultimately become, when it matures, remains to be seen by future sentience (epistemology).

We humans experience the growth of god in terms of the Time Triad of Past, Present, Future. The Past, as they say, is history (memory, fact), the Present is empirical reality, and the Future is open-ended Possibility. According to Whitehead's theory, human experience is god's experience. And the Life of the Cosmos is what we know as Causation. So, to argue Against Cause is to deny, not just a creator god, but to dismiss Life itself*4. :smile:


*1. Block Time Universe :
Philosophers such as John Lucas argue that "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

*2. Actual Occasion :
In Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics, an actual occasion is the fundamental "drop of experience" that constitutes reality.

*3. The God Process :
No, A.N. Whitehead does not propose a traditional creator God, but rather a God who is a partner in the universe's creative process. In his philosophy of process metaphysics, God is not a coercive creator who makes things ex nihilo, but a "lure" that presents possibilities to guide the universe toward novelty and order. God is not omnipotent, but persuasive and receptive, experiencing the world's joys and sorrows alongside creation and co-creating the future with it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=a.n.+whitehead+creator+god

*4. The phrase "life is causation" can be interpreted in different ways, but it generally points to the idea that every event and state in life is a result of preceding causes and, in turn, a cause for future events. This can be understood as a complex system of interconnected cause-and-effect relationships, from the biological and physical laws that govern our bodies to the choices we make that lead to specific outcomes. While some argue that life is a complex system that goes beyond simple cause and effect, many also view causation as the fundamental structure that allows us to understand, predict, and navigate the world around us.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=life+is+causation

Unless you go for some Big Daddy in the Sky divine creator figure, you are going to have to posit an ultimate stuff so vague it is just the potential for stuff, which then becomes something by dividing against itself in the complementary fashion that allows it to evolve into the many kinds of things we find. — apokrisis

Precisely! That's why non-philosophers typically think in terms of real-world experiences --- Father in heaven --- instead of groundless abstractions : Ungund.

I scanned an article about Schelling's Ungrund, and found, among the paradoxes & enigmas, one statement that is akin to my own BothAnd Principle : “idealism is the soul of philosophy; realism is its body" . . . . "only both together can constitute a living whole”.
https://epochemagazine.org/77/freedom-god-and-ground-an-introduction-to-schellings-1809-freedom-essay/

I don't follow most of his arcane reasoning, but the common notion of positive Potential makes more sense to me than the negation Ungrund. Potential even has a physical & scientific application, exemplified in storage batteries. "Vague" Potential per se is Ideal and does nothing, but when integrated into a real System (circuit), "both together" transform into Causation, and the voltage possibility of stored Energy is enabled to do actual Work.

I suspect that the OP argument "against cause" is talking about ideal & abstract Cause & Effect reasoning instead of the real & concrete natural cycles of Transformation in the real world. Hume argued that the notion of Causation was not real, but ideal : a "habit" of thinking based on experience with causal sequences, in which no physical connection between Cause and Effect can be seen, only inferred. Energy is not a real thing, but an ideal relationship : a ratio.

Philosophical Idealism is feckless & worthless by comparison to Scientific Realism. But working together, metaphysical Ideas & physical Actions allow human animals to dominate the natural world, by imagining invisible Potential, and then transforming mere possibilities into Actualities by means of Technology. :nerd:

Anaximander used the term apokrisis (separation off) to explain how the world and its components emerged from the apeiron—the boundless, indefinite, and eternal origin of all things. In his cosmology, this process involved the separation of opposites, such as hot and cold or wet and dry, from the undifferentiated primordial substance.

Thanks for the summary. My philosophical vocabulary is narrow & limited, and obtained mostly since I retired. Before retirement I was more interested in physical sciences.

So I was not familiar with Anaximander's theory of Apeiron, but it seems to be generally compatible with my own amateur philosophical hypothesis of how the world works*1, based on Quantum physics and Causal Information.

My own term, Ideal Formal Potential (source of all real forms), may be equivalent to Aperion (unlimited possibility), or Spinoza's Substance (infinite unformed stuff). This boundless Potential is similar to Plato's unformed Chaos (infinite realm of unactualized Form). It's also imagined as the source of Causal Energy (EnFormAction) that exploded --- for unknown reasons --- into what we call the Big Bang.

Whether the Enformer is viewed as a god may be a question of personal taste, but it serves the same purpose of Creator of our Reality, without meddling with the automatic functions of natural Evolution. Because of the role of Information in the process of evolution, I like to think of the Enformer as a Programmer. And the execution of the program is what we call Causation.

My personal worldview is built upon what I call the BothAnd principle*1 of Complementarity or the Union of Opposites. Instead of an Either/Or reductive analysis, I prefer a Holistic synthesis. We seem to be coming from divergent directions, with different vocabularies, but eventually met somewhere in the middle of the Aperion. :smile:


*1. 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.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
# This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

So in this thread, I have argued for the immanent and hylomorphic view of causality. . . . .
Our current universe is in its very complex – and yet also very simple – state. This seems an odd thing to say, but that itself stresses we are dealing with a logic of dichotomies. Things start to happen when two complementary things are happening at once. This is the thought that breaks the logjam of metaphysics. And has done so ever since Anaximander figured out the logic of the Apeiron split by the dichotomising action of apokrisis. — apokrisis

Again, I apologize for butting-in to your scholarly dialog with . The terminology alone is baffling to a late-blooming amateur philosopher with no formal training. But sometimes when I Google some esoteric language, I may actually learn something useful & meaningful. For example, "the dichotomising action of apokrisis" meant nothing to me, until Google revealed some associated concepts that I was already familiar with.

In the overview below*1, the evolution of the world is described in terms of two kinds of causes : Top Down = a creator/programmer, who serves as both First and Final Cause, bracketing the origin & development of what we call space-time Reality. Bottom-Up = the degrees of freedom that we call fundamental randomness/uncertainty on the quantum scale of reality. Working together, Cause (Law ; Regulation) & Chance (Stochastic Randomness ; Freedom) produce a Complex Adaptive System of "dynamic, non-linear systems of interacting agents that exhibit emergent, self-organizing behaviors and co-evolve over time". This kind of Emergent Evolution is compatible with my own notion of EnFormAction*2. :smile:


*1. Dichotomizing action of apokrisis :
A systems view of causality: In a philosophical discussion on causality, the term apokrisis has been used to describe a foundational split. It is argued that a systems approach to causality dichotomizes the notion of cause into two complementary types:
Top-down constraints: The action of formal and final causes, representing global limitations.
Bottom-up degrees of freedom: The action of material and efficient causes, representing local spontaneity and construction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+dichotomising+action+of+apokrisis.
Note --- Formal causes are natural laws (Logic). First & Final causes are design intention. And Material & Efficient causes are the Energy/Matter cycle of thermodynamics. This is my interpretation, which may not be the original intent of the dichotomizing split. Working together, Constraints & Freedom are "complementary" and creative.

*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 : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity 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; Causation.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- "Ententional Causation" is the top-down lawful constraints, and "Random Interactions" are the bottom-up spontaneous degrees of freedom that allow for the emergent creativity of Evolution.

It is against to the thesis that matter is a passive receptacle for external and transcendent forms (first cause), while symmetry breaks give matter (to which they are immanent) the ability to generate forms without external intervention. — JuanZu

I'm not a physicist, so this stuff is over my head. I had to Google "symmetry breaking"*1 to see if it can happen spontaneously without any causal inputs.

Does this contrarian-thesis mean that physical evolution occurs randomly and without causal inputs from the environment? In other words, without rhyme or reason. If so, how can scientists make any sense of the evolutionary process?*2

Is this symmetry-breaking argument intended to offer an explanation for non-classical acausal Quantum phenomena, and to deny the necessity of any cosmic First Cause of the Big Bang? How can Randomness explain anything other than Chaos . . . . or our ignorance of quantum scale reality?*3

It seems to me that human Reasoning & Logic are based on, or intuitively derived from, our experience with causation in the real world. Does this acausal thesis mean that millennia of philosophical reasoning has mis-interpreted fundamental Randomness*4 in terms of useful & meaningful Reasons, such as First Cause? :smile:


*1. Acausal Symmetry Breaking ? :
Arguments of the above kind — that is, arguments leading to definite conclusions on the basis of an initial symmetry of the situation plus PSR — have been used in science since antiquity (as Anaximander’s argument testifies). The form they most frequently take is the following: a situation with a certain symmetry evolves in such a way that, in the absence of an asymmetric cause, the initial symmetry is preserved. In other words, a breaking of the initial symmetry cannot happen without a reason, or an asymmetry cannot originate spontaneously. Van Fraassen (1989) devotes a chapter to considering the way these kinds of symmetry arguments can be used in general problem-solving.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/

*2. "Evolution without causation" refers to the philosophical debate about whether evolutionary processes, particularly natural selection, should be understood as non-causal statistical phenomena rather than as processes driven by specific causal forces. While the majority of biologists and philosophers view evolution as a causal process involving factors like mutation, inheritance, and selection, a minority, often associated with the "statisticalist" school of thought, argue that natural selection is a non-causal epiphenomenon. This concept challenges the traditional understanding of evolution by suggesting it can occur due to statistical patterns and the differential survival of individuals, rather than by inherent causal forces shaping life forms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evolution+without+causation

*3. Ignorance of quantum scale reality refers to the deep conceptual and observational gap between the quantum realm and our classical, macroscopic experience, stemming from quantum mechanics' fundamental indeterminacy, observer-dependent phenomena, and non-intuitive properties like entanglement and non-locality. Physicists are actively working to resolve these mysteries and formulate a unified theory that bridges quantum theory and general relativity to better understand the true nature of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ignorance+of+quantum+scale+reality
Note --- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle merely means that there's a "fundamental limit to how precisely certain pairs of physical properties, like an electron's position and momentum, can be known simultaneously". How can that sub-atomic sample of apparent randomness be scaled up to the evolution of a whole universe?

*4. Randomness is the apparent lack of pattern, cause, or predictability in an event, often associated with chance and probability, while reason implies a logical explanation or justification for an action or occurrence. Reason points to a specific cause, whereas randomness describes an event where the cause (if any) is not discernible, creating uncertainty in the outcome.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=randomness+vs+reason

But the unity of opposites is preSocratic. — apokrisis

I'm more familiar with the ancient Taoist Yin-Yang version, as an illustration of the concept of Complementarity. But my understanding of those general concepts is superficial and non-technical. :nerd:

And not any old forms but gauge symmetries. Special relativity zeroes the spacetime metric to a set of local points under the invariance of the Poincare group of symmetries. — apokrisis

Again, this stuff*1*2 is way over my little pointy (not Poincare) head. And I can't see what it has to do with the topic of this thread : local cause/effect vs First Cause. :joke:


*1. The philosophy of gauge symmetries explores their role as formal mathematical redundancies that nonetheless provide a powerful, albeit non-direct, framework for understanding fundamental physical reality, rather than a direct representation of nature's features. While gauge symmetries are central to modern physics, their philosophical status is debated: are they merely descriptive tools, or do they reveal deeper truths about the structure of spacetime and the emergence of physical properties?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gauge+symmetries+philosophy
Note --- This is not talking about Symmetry in the traditional mirror-image sense. I suppose it has some relation to whole systems underlying local particulars, such that superficial form-changes don't affect the fundamental unity of the system being observed. But how does this "fundamental" feature of Nature reflect the Ultimate Whole : the First Cause?

*2. In philosophy, symmetry breaking explores how order, structure, and differentiation emerge from a state of uniformity, often raising questions about the relationship between scientific theories and reality, the limits of reductionism, and the fundamental nature of laws.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=symmetry+breaking+philosophy

And so my reply was precisely about that. The holistic view of a first cause. The unit 1 story of the first symmetry-breaking. The unit 1 story of a unity of opposites. — apokrisis

Again, I apologize for my ignorance of modern technical philosophical arguments. I'm just not familiar with the arcane jargon. My philosophical vocabulary is derived mostly from the ancient reasoning of Plato & Aristotle. Since I got into philosophy only after retirement from the practical world, I have skipped most of the post-Platonic academic argumentation.

One exception to the antique vocabulary is Whitehead's Process and Reality, and it took me a lot of re-reading to understand what he was talking about. I eventually came to the realization that his arguments & metaphors are drawn mainly from mathematical reasoning, for which I have no formal training, beyond a single Calculus course.

For more modern opinions, I can understand some of the philosophical conclusions of early Quantum scientists. For example : "Uncertainty Principle's Werner Heisenberg (1901 - 1976) declared himself a Platonist : 'I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favour of Plato . . . . . the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense, they are forms". {quoted from Philosophy Now magazine, August 2025}

Consequently, much of the modern philosophical argumentation is over my head. So, I have to Google terms that are not familiar. Regarding "symmetry breaking"*1 and "unity of opposites"*2, what do they have to say about the topic of this thread : arguing against general Causes? Do they support Aristotle's notion of a necessary First Cause? :smile:


*1. In philosophy, symmetry breaking explores how order, structure, and differentiation emerge from a state of uniformity, often raising questions about the relationship between scientific theories and reality, the limits of reductionism, and the fundamental nature of laws.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=symmetry+breaking+philosophy

*2. The "unity of opposites" is a philosophical concept suggesting that seemingly opposing ideas or forces are interdependent and define each other, existing in a state of tension that drives development or wholeness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=unity+of+opposites

In fact what Penrose showed was that all the useful structure of fundamental of physics would break down if you pushed it to an actual zero point. And what instead saves it is that all of that physics rather neatly converges on the unit 1 that is the Planck point. The point at which the three fundamental constants of nature - c, G and h - become unified and have the one absolute value. — apokrisis

Again, you are talking about practical (useful) Science, instead of theoretical (reasonable) Philosophy. Except that the notion of "constants" is a generalization & abstraction from specific & concrete instances of physical changes. Likewise, the notions of Unity and Absolute are never observed in the real world, but inferred from multiple instances.

Also, the notion of Causation is a generalization from a sampling of specific exchanges of energy. From such individual theoretical inferences, we can also generalize that Nature, as a finite-but-dynamic system, must have an Absolute & Unitary (Holistic) First Cause, of which all observed instances of influence are merely "Actual Occasions", as defined by A.N. Whitehead in Process and Reality.

I apologize for harping on the notion of Holism & Original Cause, but it's essential to my personal philosophical worldview. You may ask, "is it useful?", for any practical purposes. And the answer is no. Theories are only useful for the impractical work of Philosophy. :smile:


"The sole problem is, 'does it work?' But the aim of practice can only be defined by the use of theory ; so the question 'does it work?' is a reference to theory".
"The notion of 'understanding' requires some grasp of how the finitude of the entity in question requires infinity. This search for such understanding is the definition of philosophy."
___ Science and Philosophy, A.N. Whitehead
Note --- We reason about limitless Infinity (set of all possible sets) from experience with instances of finitude (isolated set within a more comprehensive set).

I move from the metaphysics of cause to the physics of cause. — apokrisis

Of course, physics & metaphysics should be harmonious, if possible. But as the Quantum action-at-a-distance paradox indicates, sometimes we are forced to reinterpret the physics in order to derive a corrected metaphysical interpretation.

The article below*1 reminds us, Einstein mis-interpreted quantum entanglement as supraluminal communication of information, and argued strenuously against it. Years later, experiments forced scientists to change their definition of Entanglement from physical inter-action to metaphysical correlation.

The new viewpoint is Holistic instead of Reductive. Likewise, the Causation dissension may simply hinge on context (empirical vs theoretical) and definition (token vs type)*2. The technical stuff of both physics and metaphysics is over my amateur head. And the Holistic stuff may be what you are arguing against*3. :smile:


*1. Spooky Correlation :
it has since been confirmed by experimental observation that the ‘spooky action’ does indeed happen, exactly as quantum physics predicted (although it should be noted that there is no action or interaction as such, more a relationship of correlation).
https://www.texterity.com.au/spooky-action/

*2. The Metaphysics of Causation :
Although both 1 and 2 are broadly causal claims, some think that they are not claims about the same kind of causal relation. These causal relations may be differentiated by their relata.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

*3. "Holistic entanglement" refers to quantum entanglement, where multiple quantum particles are linked and become a single, inseparable system, their individual identities replaced by a shared, interconnected whole, a concept that aligns with holistic philosophies about universal interconnectedness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=holistic+entanglement

I am arguing against any strong notion of first cause. — apokrisis

Again, for scientific purposes, the weak notion of this-to-that causation is usually sufficient. Except perhaps, in Quantum physics, where Non-locality and "spooky action at a distance" remains a cause-effect mystery, yet it is accepted as a real phenomenon.

For philosophical purposes though, our explanations must "move" our understanding "from known to unknown"*1, from phenomenon to noumenon. Hence, we attempt to explain all local intermediate causes & effects in terms of a hypothetical ultimate First Cause (causal origin), which is not a real testable phenomenon. It's an inferred General Principle ; an idea not a thing. Whether it's labeled mundane Magic or mystical Magick, may depend on the context. :smile:


*1. Wayfarer reply, Excerpt from the No Magic thread (6 mo. ago) :
It's not a matter of detail alone. In Greek philosophy, the issue is phrased in terms of explanans and explanandum. In the Phaedo, for example, Socrates argues that knowledge requires a method of inquiry that moves from the known to the unknown. He suggests that in order to explain a particular phenomenon, one must have knowledge of a more general principle or cause that underlies it. Socrates refers to this more general principle as the "cause" or "explanans," and the particular phenomenon as the "effect" or "explanandum."

And besides, saith Feynman, 'I can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics'. It works - as if by magic!
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15869/the-proof-that-there-is-no-magic/p1

Note --- I interpret First Cause to be logically & necessarily eternal & intentional Essence instead of temporal & accidental Substance. — Gnomon
I am arguing against any strong notion of first cause. — apokrisis

That's OK with me. I don't have any "strong" scientific notion of First Cause. In fact, most practical scientists seem to avoid such metaphysical speculations in their work*1. For me, the notion of a First Cause is merely a philosophical conjecture to put a period on all, otherwise open-ended, causal sequences.

20th century Cosmology traced the path of measurable finite causes, energy exchanges, back to a mathematical Singularity. That hypothetical origin of space-time was inherently un-defined, because all converging mathematical paths went off the charts and disappeared into Infinity (literally un-measurable). So the Singularity itself could not be the actual First Cause, because its an Idea, not a Real thing. Hence, nobody has a strong, evidence-based, notion of First Cause.

But flakey philosophers are not bound to mundane Reality, and they can freely imagine sublime Ideality. Which is what Aristotle postulated, 13 centuries ago, as the First & Final Causes . . . . for philosophical (not scientific) & theoretical (not empirical) purposes. Those bookend Causes are as real, and useful, as the number PI. :smile:


*1. Science of First Cause : refers to the philosophical concept of a first cause—the initial, uncaused entity that initiated all subsequent causal chains and ultimately brought about existence itself. While science describes the causes of events within the universe, the first cause addresses the ultimate origin of reality, a concept explored in metaphysics and ontology rather than empirical science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+of+the+first+causes

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE SINGULARITY?

My argument is instead the one to be found in Anaximander, Peirce and quantum field theory. The Cosmos exists as the constraint on possibility. It emerges not from fundamental intentionality nor from fundamental mechanistic cause but from the fundamental vagueness of unorganised free potential. An essential state of everythingness that then must start to self-cancel until it becomes reduced to some coherently organised somethingness. A realm of inevitable structure. — apokrisis

Ouch! That kind of complexified conjecturing makes my amateur philosopher head hurt. It's so far over my little pointy pate, that I probably shouldn't even comment. Do all those polysyllabic words add-up to agreement or disagreement with my quoted summation (#) of the Argument Against Causation?
# If there was no First Cause, and no continuation of causation, and no explanation for Ontology, then the world is ultimately causeless & meaningless & irrational & absurd. — Gnomon :worry:

Note --- I interpret First Cause to be logically & necessarily eternal & intentional Essence instead of temporal & accidental Substance. Otherwise, the chain of Chance would have no beginning or end . . . . just one "damn thing" after another forever : aimless, randomized, disorganized, self-canceling, structureless, nothingness.
Sans intention, does Everythingness, Organized Somethingness, & Inevitable Structure, explain the Ontological question : "why something instead of nothing?"
Sans Intention, how could Chance cause anything other than Entropy? :chin:


In Spinoza's philosophy, "nature eternal" refers to his concept of God as Deus sive Natura (God or Nature), an absolutely infinite and eternal substance that encompasses all reality, having no beginning or end and existing by the necessity of its own nature.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+nature+eternal
Note --- Spinoza was not aware that cosmic expansion implied a beginning of space-time. So, he assumed that Nature was an eternal cycle instead of a linear expansion. Today, we must take the evidence of an ontological origin into account. And one resolution would be to ascribe an endless cycle of reincarnation of the Deus Natura, as postulated in the Multiverse theory. A sequentially-instantiated-necessity. Ooops! More polysyllabic terminology. :yikes: