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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So this becomes another overheated exercise in the Santa Fe tradition where self organising dynamics or topological order are meant to explain everything, and yet they can’t actually explain the key thing of how a molecule becomes a message and so how life and mind arise within the merely physical world.
For astrobiology perhaps especially, this is an amateur hour mistake. — apokrisis

You continue to post snarky put-downs, without any relevant reasons. Do you think the Santa Fe Institute is a bunch of amateurs?

Maybe even astrobiologists have to take baby steps. The specific stages & causes in the evolution of Matter-to-Life-to-Mind are still far from being worked-out by terrestrial biologists. Do you know of anyone who can explain "the key thing" underlying the emergence of Life from Matter and Mind from Life? I have a theory, but I'm not a Biologist, and have no credentials, which makes me an amateur. :smile:


New Concepts of Matter, Life and Mind :
In the ongoing co-evolution of matter with the vacuum's zero-point field, life emerges out of nonlife, and mind and consciousness emerge out of the higher domains of life. This evolutionary concept does not 'reduce' reality either to non-living matter (as materialism), or assimilate it to a nonmaterial mind (as idealism).
https://www.physlink.com/education/essay_laszlo.cfm
Note --- Ervin Laszlo is author of The Systems View of the World

Founded in 1984, the Santa Fe Institute was the first research institute dedicated to the study of complex adaptive systems. We are operated as an independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) research and education center.
History. The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by scientists George Cowan, David Pines, Stirling Colgate, Murray Gell-Mann, Nick Metropolis, Herb Anderson, Peter A. Carruthers, and Richard Slansky. All but Pines and Gell-Mann were scientists with Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Just trying to work out what your claim is. So we have something like that the universe that, as it slides inevitably towards thermodynamic equilibrium, progresses towards increasing complexity & creative novelty eventually led from a hypothetical Singularity Soup (quark/gluon plasma) to the emergence of complex brains & minds?
It remains that the universe is fair and just only if those "complex brains & minds" make it so - is that right? — Banno

The title of this thread is not a "claim", but a question. In the OP, I did make one positive statement : "Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects". You claimed that the universe "slides inevitably toward thermodynamic equilibrium". If so, how do you explain the historical fact that the metaphorical Big Bang didn't immediately or inevitably evaporate in a puff of entropic smoke? Why, after 14 billion sol-years of wasted energy, due to disorganizing Entropy, is the "explosion" not only still expanding, but even accelerating, and creating a plethora of novel physical configurations, along with animated organisms, and a few metaphysical (mental) forms of cosmic stuff? How has the world evaded "inevitable" heat death for so long?

Astronomers, who traced the current state of affairs back to a pinpoint in the remote past, concluded that the Singularity began in a size smaller than an atom, and hotter & denser than any star. If so, how could inevitable heat-wasting Entropy produce anything more complex than a cold dark cinder? My philosophical hypothesis --- not a scientific claim --- is in agreement with anthropologist Henri Bergson's notion of Creative Evolution*1, in which he speculated that some then-unknown causal agency or principle, working counter to that of Entropy, is the explanation for the manifold exceptions to Thermodynamic Doom that we observe right here on the Blue Planet. In 400BC, Plato postulated an organizing force in the world, labelled "Logos". The term "Negentropy" was coined by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1944 book What is Life? In 1926, biologist Jan Smuts, presciently coined the term "Holism" to describe that same anti-entropy trend in natural evolution. In 2008, Gnomon, not a scientist nor a genius, coined the terms EnFormAction and Enformy to encapsulate all of the above principles.

None of these scientists relied on religious revelation for their belief in "creative evolution". Instead, they merely applied logical inferences of cause & effect, to explain how isolated things & events could combine into the whole integrated system of morphogenesis*2 (form creation) we call Evolution. Likewise, my own personal philosophical worldview is not grounded on any religious faith, but on rational reasoning from scientific & philosophical evidences. Therefore, I can agree with your assertion that "complex brains & minds make it so". But not with the implication that thermodynamic deconstruction could produce, or even allow, such complexity & consciousness by a random network of cosmic accidents. Entropy is always destructive of order, except when it is morphed into Enformy*3.

Instead, I agree with those geniuses from previous generations that there is some constructive creative agency causing positive form-change in the world. And I point the finger at the aimless Causal Force we call Energy. But energy alone can be either constructive or destructive. So, I follow those predecessors to conclude that raw Energy is directed & guided by internal cohesion & interaction to behave in coordinating cooperating Holistic ways. You next question, I suppose is : is that agency a god? My answer is : I don't know, but I currently treat it as an ordinary force of Nature, similar to abstract formles Energy, except working counter to Entropy. :nerd:


*1a. Élan Vital is a term coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. ____Wikipedia
*1b. Bergson's thesis is that Darwinian and Lamarkian evolution are only half the story and that there is a creative urge inherent in life that defines the direction

*2. Morphogenesis is defined as the suite of underlying biological processes orchestrating the dynamic formation of macroscopic shapes in biological matter.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/morphogenesis

*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, meta-physical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Did your astrobiologists remember that classic as they restated what has been well known among those who study these things for so many years. — apokrisis

What difference does that make? Do you imagine that astrobiologists are ignorant of Negentropy? Why are you trying to put-down this "new law" with nit-picky irrelevant comments? Does it contradict your personal worldview in some way? Do you read into it some outrageous religious doctrine? Is there some particular sore-point that it aggravates? Spell it out. What "well known" wheel are they reinventing?

My interest in this "new" perspective on Evolution is because it fits neatly into to my personal Holistic philosophical worldview, which underlies all of my comments on this forum. Biologist Jan Smuts, in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution, foresaw this expansion of evolutionary principles from Biology to Mineralogy and everything else : "The whole-making, holistic tendency, or Holism, . . . . is seen at all stages of existence, and is by no means confined to the biological domain, to which science has hitherto restricted it".

I doubt that the Cornell scientists "remember that classic". But they may have been influenced by its gradual percolation into the philosophical culture of science over the intervening years. Holism is currently known in science & engineering as General Systems Theory. The "missing evolutionary law" they postulated is merely one small step in the direction of a universal holistic worldview. And my renaming of the inappropriate term Negentropy as "EnFormAction", and negative Entropy as positive "Enformy" is just another increment in that trend away from classical scientific Reductionism toward general philosophical Holism*1.

Smuts asserted that Holism "is the motive force behind Evolution". It's what Bergson, grasping for a metaphor, called elan vital*2. But that was mis-interpreted as a religious concept similar to the Holy Spirit. The philosophical worldview of reductive Scientism might understandably be opposed to the notion of Holism, in that it pictures Evolution as a positive trend in Nature, instead of a downhill tumble toward entropic Heat Death. FWIW, my worldview is more optimistic. What about yours? :smile:


*1. I can't get my head around Reductionism vs Holism :
Many articles present reductionism as the whole is the sum of its parts. Holism is presented as the antithesis, that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. . . .
According to wikipedia, an example of reductionism is that the solar system can be explained in terms of planets and the gravitational forces between them. What strikes me as contradictory, is that I would have thought that the gravitional forces constitute an interaction between parts, not a part in and of itself? Therefore, this example conveys to me that reductionism is the idea that the whole is the sum of its parts and the interaction between the parts?
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/vrgba7/i_cant_get_my_head_around_reductionism_vs_holism/
Note --- The "interaction" between parts is what I call EnFormAction.

*2. Élan Vital is a term coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. ____Wikipedia

Refresh my memory. What have you been telling me? — Gnomon
As I say, I am officially baffled about how you deal with information. — apokrisis

I apologize for my ignorance and leaky memory. As I've mentioned before, I had no formal training in Philosophy in college, and I only began to get some experience with argumentation since I retired, and began posting on this forum. So a large percentage of your posts goes over my head, especially the long complicated ones. You use technical terminology unfamiliar to me, and refer to authors & texts I've never read. So, in many cases I just skim the posts. As you probably do with mine.

Regarding the Information and Arrow of Time graphic, I don't remember posting it, but it seems to fit my general understanding of the Evolution of Information. Can you explain to me what you think I didn't understand about it?

My personal philosophical concept of Information Theory is a departure*1*2 from that of Shannon, who seemed to equate it with disorderly devolving Entropy. Instead, I view the area between the red & blue curves in the Entropy graph as Negentropy, which is what I call EnFormAction (power to enform). You won't find that term in any science or philosophy texts, because I made it up to serve my amateur thesis of Enformationism. So, unless you are motivated to look into that unorthodox thesis, you'll probably remain "baffled by how I deal with information". :smile:

*1. The Information Philosopher :
My explanation of the cosmic creation process shows how the expansion of the universe opened up new possibilities for different possible futures. My work is based on a suggestion by Arthur Stanley Eddington and my Harvard colleague David Layzer.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

*2. Paul Davies on Information :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7EjwUp5krY

FWIW, here's my own chart of the evolution of Information (EnFormAction) since the universe began :

Is the argument then that this complexity somehow implies (leads to, causes...) a fair and just universe? — Banno

No. Where did you get that idea? One implication of this New Law of Evolution is that its progression of increasing complexity & creative novelty eventually led from a hypothetical Singularity Soup (quark/gluon plasma) to the emergence of complex brains & minds capable of asking questions about Fairness & Justice, that we world-observers call Philosophy. :smile:

This doesn't seem like some profound new law about the world to me; they just seem to be proposing another way of describing evolution as always been understood, just in a different and I guess more general way. — Apustimelogist

So, you were underwhelmed by this revelation of Causal Information as the key to universal progressive & creative Evolution from almost nothing to everything? Apparently some scientists in related fields are more impressed. :nerd:


Scientists propose 'missing' law for the evolution of everything in the universe :
# This new law identifies "universal concepts of selection" that drive systems to evolve, whether they're living or not.
# The research team behind the law, which included philosophers, astrobiologists, a theoretical physicist, a mineralogist and a data scientist, have called it "the law of increasing functional information."
# The law applies to systems that form from numerous components — such as atoms, molecules and cells —which can be arranged and rearranged repeatedly and adopt multiple different configurations, according to the statement. The law also says these configurations are selected based on function, and only a few survive.
# Theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, professor emeritus of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the study is a "superb, bold, broad, and transformational article,"
https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evolution-of-everything-in-the-universe

Evolution, not just survival, but novelty & creativity :
# The third and most interesting function according to the researchers is ‘novelty’ — the tendency of evolving systems to explore new configurations that sometimes lead to startling new behaviors or characteristics, like photosynthesis
https://www.sci.news/physics/law-of-increasing-functional-information-12369.html

Philosophy :
Functionalism is a theory about the nature of mental states. According to functionalists, mental states are identified by what they do rather than by what they are made of. Functionalism is the most familiar or “received” view among philosophers of mind and cognitive science.
https://iep.utm.edu/functism/
Note --- Doing is causal, not material

No. I'm pointing out how the sociology of science operates. NASA wants to remain employed by the US taxpayer. — apokrisis

What does NASA playing politics/ecomomics have to do with a scientific theory developed by Cornell University scientists? Do you think they choose to only back ideas that might be popular with voters? Is AstroBiology a popular use of taxpayer investments? Show me the aliens! :joke:

Sorry Gnomon, I don't fathom how your brain works. What else have I been telling you for at least a decade? — apokrisis

Refresh my memory. What have you been telling me? Have you been saying something like : "while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder"*2. This notion is also in opposition to the presumptions of Materialism, which focuses on the Randomness & Chaos of the universe"? If so, please accept my belated welcome to the club. :grin:

One has to laugh. Astrobiology - NASA’s fund-raising publicity department - reinvents the wheel. A new law that no one ever thought of. — apokrisis

Ha! You got something against the science of Astrobiology*1? Do you think Carl Sagan was looking through his telescope for little green men? Do you think NASA is a public relations tool for some nefarious evil-genius who wants to dominate the world? Well granted, Donald Trump or Elon Musk may want to put his name on the next rocket to Mars. And, Skepticism of "new" ideas is a truth filter. But, Scoffing is a creativity suppressor.

Dr. Michael Wong is indeed an astrobiologist, but the team included scientists from other specialties.The NASA article was just one of dozens of positive reviews of this proposed law. Besides, the linked publication doesn't mention Astrobiology. And the appellation of "new law" was applied by other science news publications. What "wheel" do you think is being re-invented here? What old law explained how Mind Functions and Human Purposes could emerge from purely materialistic evolution?

One reason I mentioned this particular scientific theory --- in this way-off-topic thread --- is that the postulated anti-entropy arrow-of-time puts Evolution in a new light. For years, scientists were able to picture Darwinian evolution as meandering, aimless, and ultimately doomed to a pathetic meaningless Heat Death. But now we have reasons for a more optimistic perspective : "his idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder"*2. This notion is also in opposition to the presumptions of Materialism, which focuses on the Randomness & Chaos of the universe, instead of the Order & Organization that makes Science & Philosophy possible.

The other reason is that "renowned mineralogist" Robert Hazen refers to this second arrow of thermodynamics as “the law of increasing functional information”. Which dovetails into my own personal information-based worldview. Moreover, it expands Darwin's notion of biological evolution to include non-living aspects of the universe*3. Which may help to explain how the hypothetical quark-gluon Plasma of the Big Bang was able to develop into living & thinking lumps of matter, not by divine creation, but by natural processes. How could Mechanical Evolution produce creatures concerned about Fairness & Justice in the world? :nerd:


*1. Astrobiology is a scientific field within the life and environmental sciences that studies the origins, early evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe by investigating its deterministic conditions and contingent events. ___Wikipedia

*2. Is there a second arrow of time? New research says yes
At Big Think, we introduce you to the brightest minds and boldest ideas of our time, inviting viewers to explore new ways to work, live, and understand our ever-changing world.
"Big Think challenges common sense assumptions and gives people permission to think in new ways.”
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

*3. New Law :
The core of everything we've been thinking about, in terms of the missing law, is evolution. When I say the word "evolution," you immediately think of Darwin, but this idea of selection goes much, much beyond Darwin and life. It applies to the evolution of atoms. It applies to the evolution of minerals. It applies to the evolution of planets and atmospheres and oceans. Evolution, which we see as being an increase in diversity, of patterning, in complexity of systems through time.
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

https://www.sci.news/physics/law-of-increasing-functional-information-12369.html

https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evolution-of-everything-in-the-universe

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/22/evolution-complexity-law

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/law-of-nature-research-selection-evolution-function-fittest-cornell-carnegie

https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IngBEkg61_E
Three new laws of Nature, to account for complexity. Sabine is skeptical.

Is There a Second Arrow of Time?

You haven't and Wayfarer hasn't, said what that alternative form of idealism consists in. If it is only that the brain models a world, well I think that is uncontroversial. But to think that what is being modeled exists in its own right seems most plausible to me given all the evidence from our experience as it is given by everday life and by science.

If there are no mind-independent existents and if there is no collective mind to which we are all connected, then how would you explain the fact that we all perceive the same things, including at least some animals? I am yet to see even the beginnings of any such explanation coming from you or Wayfarer. — Janus

Has been explaining his alternative form of idealism on this forum, and in magazine articles, for years. But his Buddhist-based metaphors & analogies do not translate into the vocabulary of Materialism or Physicalism or Scientism. My own worldview has more to do with ancient Plato & Aristotle philosophies, and little with Buddhism, but we have arrived at similar worldviews, that focus more on intangible Ideas than on corporeal Matter. My influences were mostly in 20th & 21st century Science ; especially Quantum & Information & Complexity theories. So, instead of calling my worldview Idealism, I labeled it as Enformationism*1. But I suppose you could style it "scientifically informed Idealism".

A recent development in science has been the notion that inorganic & organic Evolution is lawful*2. It proposes "a second arrow of time" which is positive & constructive, and opposed to the second law of thermodynamics : Entropy*3. The team of scientists haven't settled on a name for this anti-entropy law, but an old ironic label --- since the arrow direction is positive & progressive --- was Negentropy. In my own Information-based thesis, I refer to that "law" of gradual emergent evolution --- from a simple beginning (Singularity) toward more complex forms (Cosmos) --- as a natural trend, and label it as Enformy*4.

The Cornell University team called their "new law" of Evolution : "the law of increasing functional information.". And one member of the team calls it "a second arrow of time", pointing in the opposite direction from devolving Entropy. He also "explains that evolution seems to not only incorporate time, but also function and purpose". That latter term is provocative, since it seems to imply a Purposer, a Motivator, an Intender, an Organizer, a Designer, a Cosmic Mind. All of which are anathema to those who view the world as directionless & meaningless and destined for Nothingness.

Throughout history, most cultures have referred to that First Cause & Prime Mover as a God or Mind of some kind. But Plato gave it the less anthro name of Logos*5. You can call it whatever makes sense to you. But it's getting harder to deny that the universe was born in a burst of Energy & Law, then evolved toward sapiential maturity, and shows no signs of devolving into icy Entropy anytime soon. The world is not now, and never has been Ideal, in the sense of perfection. But since its most important feature so far, to us idea-sharing philosophers, is the emergence of creatures with Concepts, perhaps unrealistic Idealism is not too far off the mark. But I prefer the unfamiliar term Enformationism, which has no history of philosophical politics to elicit incredulity and knee-jerk reactions. :smile:



*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe ; including ideas.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Several blog posts explain in what sense Information can be considered an Aristotelian Substance.

*2. Scientists propose 'missing' law for the evolution of everything in the universe :
The research team behind the law, which included philosophers, astrobiologists, a theoretical physicist, a mineralogist and a data scientist, have called it "the law of increasing functional information."
"This was a true collaboration between scientists and philosophers to address one of the most profound mysteries"
https://www.space.com/scientists-propose-missing-law-evolution-of-everything-in-the-universe
This idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder.
https://bigthink.com/the-well/the-second-arrow-of-time/

*3. Entropy :
Refers to a state of disorder, but the term literally means Transformation. But if the Big Bang was followed only by disorder, it would have quickly disappeared in a puff of smoke. Yet, instead, the world system has gradually increased in organization, until now some of its offspring have evolved rational minds that are capable of imagining what the world was like 14 billion years ago. Many thinkers have interpreted Entropy pessimistically, to predict an eventual "heat death" in another 14 billion years. Yet, here we are, looking up at the stars, and wondering how & why we got to this point, and where we go from here.

*4 Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*5. LOGOS :
A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

↪Gnomon
My criticism of the view that everything is mind is that we really have no idea what that could really mean. On the other hand, we know very well what it means to say that everything is material or physical, since we find ourselves in a material world, where everything, except abstract generalities, does seem to be physical. Abstract generalities can be said to only exist in their material instantiations, and we have no way of clearly conceiving and saying how they could exist in any other sense. — Janus

's article seems to agree with your assessment, that a superhuman eye-in-the-sky worldview would be materially meaningless, but insists that the abstract notion may be metaphorically*1 relevant and symbolically meaningful. Before the 20th century, humans had never seen the world beyond their local horizon. But, they could imagine a bird's-eye-view, as evidenced by some of their ancient maps of the known world. {image below}

Where Kastrup aspires to prove logically that a Cosmic Mind must exist in some meaningful sense, Way says "there is no need to introduce a literal ‘mind-at-large’ to maintain a coherent idealism" {my emphasis}. What he does posit, in the article, is that a philosophical "paradigm shift from scientific materialism to scientifically-informed idealism" is currently underway"*2. And that new paradigm would not say "Abstract generalities can be said to only exist in their material instantiations" {my emphasis}. Which only makes sense from a Materialist perspective.

So, Way presents an alternative form of Idealism, which doesn't require an actual sensable God-in-the-quad to maintain the physical world in the absence of a human observer. For instance, a "cognitive shift"*3 in the observer/imaginer can be personally meaningful, even without an "instantiation". General Concepts and Universal Principles have no material specimen, only logical structure. :smile:


*1. Metaphor is figurative, not physical :
My favorite: Metaphor is a poetically or rhetorically ambitious use of words, a figurative as opposed to literal use. It has attracted more philosophical interest and provoked more philosophical controversy than any of the other traditionally recognized figures of speech.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-favorite-philosophical-metaphor

*2. Excerpt from Is there a ‘mind at large’? :
Without the organising capability which consciousness brings to the universe, what exists is by definition unintelligible and unknowable. The mind brings an order to experience in light of which data is interpreted and integrated into meaningful information — this is an intrinsic aspect of the meaning of ‘being’. But the sense in which the universe exists apart from or outside that activity is by definition unknown, so there is no need to posit a ‘mind-at-large’ to account for it.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/mind-at-large-169bb5f0c3a7
Note --- Plato postulated a universal logical force (LOGOS) in the world, organizing it into the orderly lawful physical system of parts that analytical Science can make sense of.

*3. The Overview Effect :
The overview effect is a cognitive shift reported by some astronauts while viewing the Earth from space. Researchers have characterized the effect as "a state of awe with self-transcendent qualities, precipitated by a particularly striking visual stimulus". The most prominent common aspects of personally experiencing the Earth from space are appreciation and perception of beauty, unexpected and even overwhelming emotion, and an increased sense of connection to other people and the Earth as a whole. The effect can cause changes in the observer's self concept and value system, and can be transformative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect


WORLD AS SEEN FROM ABOVE THE LOCATION OF THE MEDIEVAL IMAGINER

Wayfarer claims he doesn't agree with Kastrup's "mind at large", which I would say is itself an incoherent idea, but he apparently cannot offer any coherent alternative. — Janus
I've addressed that, in Is there 'Mind at Large'?, which I think is coherent, even if Tom Storm says it needs more detail. (I'm planning further installments. And re-visiting it, I think perhaps rather than invoking the spooky 'mind at large', I would just use the term 'some mind' or 'any mind' or 'the observer'.) — Wayfarer

seems to frequently criticize posts on the basis of incoherence. Which could mean that various statements & assertions in the post don't add-up to the postulated conclusion, or that the critic is incapable of following the implicit logic of the discussion. I Googled "philosophy -- coherence"*1 and found the page linked below. It says that "coherence" may imply Justified Belief, or may prove that the conclusion is True. I doubt that you are claiming that "Mind at Large" is provably true, but only that it is a believable possibility. So, his criticism may be saying that he doesn't agree with your conclusion, or that you haven't presented a detailed logical "system" to support your conjecture of a Universal Consciousness.

Over the millennia there have been many "systems" (theories) of philosophical Cosmic Consciousness : PanPsychism, PanTheism, PanEnDeism, . . . . ; and Kastrup's systematic & detailed worldview of Analytical Idealism is a recent addition. So, the easiest way to present a "coherent" theory pointing to the existence of some kind of intrinsic Mind in the Universe would be to simply accept one of those time-proven systems from the past as a label for your personal view. But apparently, what you have in mind is not exactly in accordance --- difference in detail --- with any of those older schemes of belief.

I'm in the same seemingly rudderless boat. Consequently, I was forced to produce my own personal thesis leading to the conclusion that our evolving world does indeed have a rudder. But few posters on this forum are willing to invest the time to plow through the details, evidences & arguments. So, they prefer to use prejudicial labels to characterize an unfamiliar system-of-thought, that they don't understand, as incoherent or simply untrue.

I continue to add "details" to my own thesis, as do you, but I doubt that any amount of itemization will convince someone who is not already inclined toward your point of view. If the general notion is abhorrent to their worldview, more particulars will not sway them. Concur? :smile:


*1. Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification :
According to the coherence theory of justification, also known as coherentism, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes. The coherence theory of justification should be distinguished from the coherence theory of truth. The former is a theory of what it means for a belief or a set of beliefs to be justified, or for a subject to be justified in holding the belief or set of beliefs. The latter is a theory of what it means for a belief or proposition to be true.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

As for as Kastrup’s idealism - I do question the ‘mind at large’ idea in this essay - Is there ‘mind at large’? - — Wayfarer

In my last two posts on this thread, I responded to 's and 's challenges for you to state a firm either/or (cake or eat) position on the multi-faceted concept of Idealism. And one facet that you seem to waver on is the "mind at large" notion, which seems to imply some kind of God-mind ; although even Kastrup seems to be "of two minds" regarding the nature of that hypothetical entity.

In your Mind At Large article, you distinguished Scientific Materialism from Scientifically-Informed Idealism. And the latter phrase is close to my intention when I wrote the original Enformationism thesis. Yet invariably, posters on this forum insist that I take a stand for Scientific Materialism or for Philosophical Idealism. However, what I had in mind was more like your notion of "Scientifically-Informed Idealism" (SII).

Although your interpretation of SII may not be exactly the same as mine, I suspect that we both envision a middle-ground or transition between the poles of Mind and Matter. If so, then you and I are standing firmly on the bridge in between. For me, that Mind/Matter connection is Generic Information, as exemplified in physical causal Energy Fields, which Einstein linked to Matter in his E=MC^2 equation. Mathematical Mass is not the same thing as sensable Matter, but it's how our physical senses perceive Material objects in a gravitational field : resistance ; inertia.

If my guess is correct, then you and I are not vacillating between two poles, but stably standing in the middle ground, which some philosophers believe does not, cannot, exist. But we may still be unsure of the nature of the "mind at large" which serves as a Bridge Over Troubled Waters. For me, it's definitely not the God of Theology, but more like the Way-Path (organizing principle) of Taoism, or the Logos (rational principle) of Western Philosophy. Is my reckoning even close to your standpoint? :smile:

I can't help but contrast your response to me and your response to Gnomon, here: ↪Wayfarer
. Analytical Idealism is not, so far as I can make out, a form of Epistemological idealism. So again, you seem to me to want your cake and to eat it, by answering issues I raise from the point of view of Epistemological idealism while answering issues others raise from the point of view of ontological idealism. — Banno

Your use of the Cake metaphor sounds like you think it's a bad (magical?) idea to try to have it both ways ; perhaps like Jesus multiplying five loaves of bread into enough nutriment to feed five thousand people. But I view 's broadminded worldview as a useful philosophical attitude ; that I call BothAnd*1. It's a flexible binocular perspective that combines two conceptual frames into one philosophical worldview ; where you're not forced to choose one side to stand on.

Rather than viewing the Cake as either Material/Real or Immaterial/Ideal, he can see both sides of the equation. It's based on the traditional distinction between a physical Object (Terrain) and a metaphysical Metaphor (Map) : the idea/concept/synopsis/model of the terrain. Epistemology is about our sensory knowledge of real Objects. But Ontology is about our rational inference of ideal Essences. For example, Aristotle's HyloMorph combines a real material Cake (yummy!) and an ideal mental Cake (the abstract tasteless notion of cakeness).

Empirical Science specializes in practical sensable Epistemology, while Theoretical Philosophy focuses on impractical visionary Ontology. But, on this forum, in our search for perfect all-encompassing Truth, we often cross the line between the Cake you can eat, and the Cake you can only imagine. :smile:


*1. BothAnd :
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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

First job was to wind you back from confusing cognition as epistemic method with cognition as some kind of ontological mind stuff that grounds mind-independent reality. — apokrisis
If you looked at the Mind Created World piece, I explicitly state that I am not arguing for any such thing. — Wayfarer

Way off-topic :
As usual, 's discussion is over my head. But it may not be over yours. I had to Google A> "cognition as epistemic method"*1 to learn how it differs from B> "ontological mind stuff"*2. The "A" definition sounds like Ontology-as-usual, while the "B" version sounds like an Idealist interpretation of the traditional question of "what is Being?", but using a matter-based metaphor : "stuff". Which can be confusing for those who take metaphors literally.

Cognition is defined as 'mental activity", but that leaves open the question of how the human brain is able to metaphorically reach out beyond the skull into the material world, and bring back meaningful Percepts that can be transformed into useful Concepts. How do incoming photons (light energy) convey knowledge about the properties (redness) of the object that reflected the light? How does Cognition decode mathematical wavelengths into personal meanings? After several thousand years of argument and experimentation, a final answer to such questions seems as elusive as ever.

The notion of a "Mind Created World" seems to be another perennial conundrum that is not amenable to objective empirical finality. If so, is arbitrary Faith the only answer? I just read an article, in Beshara magazine, entitled Mind Over Matter*3. It's an interview with Bernardo Kastrup about his Analytical Idealism beliefs. One of his responses refers to Matter as an "extended transpersonal form of mind". Again, that sounds like Cosmic Mind-stuff (res cogitans) is a non-local ideal substance that can be molded into various forms of extended substance (res extensa).

Obviously, that universal mind-matter is not generated by my personal brain, so does it assume that the world is created by God-mind (panpsychism or cosmopsychism)*4? On one hand, Kastrup seems to deny most traditional Theology, but he is somewhat cagey about the nature of the god-mind-stuff that constitutes the world we personified-blobs-of-matter observe with our senses. If god-mind is not self-reflective, can it be intentional in its creative acts or just accidental? Sorry to unload on you, but such cosmic questions are pertinent to my own non-theological information-based philosophical theory of Evolution from cosmic Bang to local Cognition. :nerd:


*1. Epistemic cognition is knowledge about knowledge, especially knowledge about fundamental issues of justification and associated matters of objectivity, subjectivity, rationality, and truth.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2_17
Specifically, individuals engage in epistemic cognition when they activate personal beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.669908/full

*2. Ontological mind stuff :
To ask about the ontology of mind, from the Greek word 'ontos', or 'being', is to inquire into the most fundamental metaphysical categories to which the mind may belong. Is the mind a physical thing, in principle like other material entities, but with more complex properties, or is it somehow immaterial?
https://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/Jacquette_Introduction.pdf

*3. Mind Over Matter :
I ended up as a metaphysical idealist –somebody who thinks that the whole of reality is mental in essence. It is not in your mind alone, not in my mind alone, but in an extended transpersonal form of mind which appears to us in the form that we call matter.
https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/mind-over-matter/

*4. Cosmopsychism :
Bernardo Kastrup also tells Michael Egnor that he does not think God is self-reflective. That, he thinks, is a unique job for humans.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-cosmopsychist-talks-about-the-universe-god-and-free-will/

It’s not a question of whether the ‘wave function’ is or isn’t mind-dependent. The equation describes the distribution of probabilities. When the measurement is taken the possibilities all reduce to a specific outcome. That is the ‘collapse’. Measurement is what does that, but measurement itself is not specified by the equation, and besides it leaves open the question of in what sense the particle exists prior to measurement. — Wayfarer

This thread has strayed away from the relatively simple yes/no/maybe question of a Just World --- where your opinion is just as valid as mine --- onto the open-ended (infinite ; non-empirical ; unverifiable) question of Subjective vs Objective Reality.

To Wit : Various interpretations of Quantum "collapse" seem to split along the line of another non-empirical question : is there a truly general Objective Observer to maintain the cosmos in Potential (statistical uncertainty - probability) when no specific Subjective observer is looking (measuring) to make it locally certain (Actuality)? Is it true that, the quantum waveform, and the immaterial field within which it is waving, is a generalized mathematical abstraction (mental image), not an observed real event?

seems to view Empirical Science as the closest possible approximation of perfect universal Objectivity, which trumps your ideal philosophical notion of a human-mind-independent Reality. Is there any way to resolve that Ideal/Real gap? :smile:


Gnomon reply to Wayfarer :
"I'm generally familiar with all those Observer World theories, but I'm not clear on one point. It should be obvious that observation of a physical object somehow creates a meta-physical world-view (mental image) in the mind of the observer.

But does anyone claim that your observation --- of a "collapsing" quantum event for instance --- creates the actual world that I personally routinely experience, apart from scientific experiments/measurements? Or that we collectively "participate" in creation of the world that we all more or less agree is out there?

Did Wheeler over-generalize from lab experiments to kitchen experience? Seems like we may be arguing about two different things here : my Ideal World vs everyone's Real World."
. . . . . from this Fair & Just thread

Scientific Objectivity :
The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

I’m sorry but which of these interpretations say that human minds are what cause the Universe to be? — apokrisis
Some points from the ChatGPT outline: — Wayfarer

Off-topic :
I'm generally familiar with all those Observer World theories, but I'm not clear on one point. It should be obvious that observation of a physical object somehow creates a meta-physical world-view (mental image) in the mind of the observer.

But does anyone claim that your observation --- of a "collapsing" quantum event for instance --- creates the actual world that I personally routinely experience, apart from scientific experiments/measurements? Or that we collectively "participate" in creation of the world that we all more or less agree is out there?

Did Wheeler over-generalize from lab experiments to kitchen experience? Seems like we may be arguing about two different things here : my Ideal World vs everyone's Real World. :chin:

Participation in Creation :
He would say things like 'No phenomenon is a true phenomenon until it's an observed phenomenon,'” said Robert M. Wald, a theoretical physicist at the University of Chicago who was Wheeler's doctoral student at the time. John Wheeler's “participatory universe” suggests that observers make the universe real.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-will-destroy-all-quantum-states-researchers-argue-20230307/

Einstein to Pais :
“Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”

Notice the implicit assumption in the statement that the physical world is 'the real world'. — Wayfarer

That is also my commonsense assumption, for all practical purposes. But, for philosophical purposes, I make a distinction between empirical Real world, and theoretical Ideal world. Even normally pragmatic scientists will imagine non-real scenarios as they try to make sense of the world-system as a whole. For example, since the semi-empirical Big Bang theory sounds like a taboo creation event, they may logically speculate about "what came before the Bang?" Some will dismiss it as a non-sense question, and dogmatically insist that this space-time world is one & done : no before or after. But others*1 seem to accept, as a matter of Faith/Fact, that an unverifiable/unfalsifiable Multiverse is the best answer. Presumably, in an infinity of worlds, random Good & Evil coin-flips will balance out. Some of us were just unlucky to be born into an out-of-whack alternate reality. Hence, the OP question for those of us in the contemporary world.

Since some very smart scientists accept the bizarre notion of an infinite chain of real-but-non-empirical realities, I can't find fault with ancient religious thinkers who took the "reality" of an eternal heavenly realm for granted. That unreal dual-world-view (enlightenment?) allowed them to make sense --- to balance the scales of Justice --- of their empirical temporal world. I don't think they were stupid to make such philosophical speculations. And apparently, such imaginary worlds have "made sense" to a majority of humans over millennia. They only differ, and argue, or fight, over the nit-picky details and the rules for navigating the Real and Ideal worlds. Some justice-seekers reach for the imaginary liberation of the elusive Nirvana emotional state --- picture yourself free from this suffering world ; while others piously or stoically endure the trials & tribulations of their empirical reality, in hopes of eventually enjoying eternal bliss in their imagined Paradise. Am I an idiot to entertain the optimistic notion that there's more to Reality than "first you suffer, and then you die"? :cool:



*1. Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Lee Smolin, Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Partly, because the real world includes varying life conditions. We discover what's fair and what isn't, and respond accordingly, e.g. suffer, enjoy, form judgements and complain or praise the particular conditions in which we live. It takes discipline to remain indifferent to the reality of fairness. — jkop

Yes. The physical world is unbiased ; neither Just nor Unjust ; but its variety affords chances for both kinds of effects. That's why I call my worldview BothAnd : it's both Fair and Unfair, both Just and Unjust, depending on the place & time & person. So, the OP question is really about Culture, not Nature, about Psychology, not Physics. :smile:

You mention 'top down constraints' - but what is the ultimate source of those constraints? Can they be traced back to Lloyd Rees' 'six numbers'? Because that has a satisfyingly Platonist ring to it, in my view. — Wayfarer

My philosophical repertoire is limited, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Physics. So a lot of 's discussion (and your replies) are over my head. My comments are necessarily more general and conventional --- except for my personal unorthodox ideas, of course. Besides, this diversion onto Materialism vs Metaphysics or Realism vs Idealism is off-topic for this thread. Do you think it should be moved to a new thread? I'll let you and Apo decide what to call it. And you can get as deep & techy as you like. :smile: